The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal did not know that the Defendant was a hunting prohibition zone located within 1 km from the temple, which was the F, that the place where the instant crime was committed was owned by a large number of cultural heritage assets, and there was a justifiable reason for not knowing that it was a hunting prohibition zone.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding." It is generally accepted that the act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime but, in his own special circumstances, it does not constitute a crime as permitted under the Acts and subordinate statutes. It is not punishable if there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime. Whether there is justifiable grounds or not should be determined depending on whether the act of misunderstanding that one's own act was not aware of illegality due to his intellectual ability, even though there was a possibility that one's own act could have been aware of illegality, and the degree of efforts necessary for recognizing illegality should be determined differently depending on the situation of the act of misunderstanding and the person's awareness ability, and social group to which the actor belongs.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5526, Oct. 23, 2008). B.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the place where the instant crime was committed.