logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2012.09.11 2012노192
산지관리법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Because of the school problems of children, the Defendant obtained permission for the conversion of this case by borrowing the name of G from his domicile inevitably because he could not move to his domicile.

Although whether or not there was an intention to cultivate crops at the time of applying for permission for conversion of mountainous district shall be determined on the basis of the defendant who is the nominal borrower, the court below found him guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that G, the nominal lender, did not intend to cultivate crops, and the judgment below

After obtaining permission for conversion in the name of G, the Defendant again obtained permission for conversion of mountainous district in the name of the Defendant, constructed plastic houses in the forest of this case, performed civil engineering works, and purchased liquid manure in order to change soil quality, thereby ppuri and growing crops. In light of this, the Defendant actually intended to cultivate crops.

The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

The facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged by the lower court are prohibited from converting a mountainous district upon obtaining permission for conversion of a mountainous district by false or other unlawful means.

On March 2008, the Defendant purchased 6,446 square meters of forest land Franyang-gun, Gangwon-do, E-owned, and obtained permission for mountainous district conversion, which is a special agricultural crops, “shared with cultivation,” and tried to sell pine trees above the above forest land.

However, the defendant has the domicile at the time, and it is not reasonable to obtain permission for mountainous district conversion due to the lack of the farmland ledger. The defendant knows that G had the farmland ledger by his employee, and around that time, G has the domicile to obtain permission for mountainous district conversion, and there is a problem in the farmland ledger, and there is a request to file an application for permission for mountainous district conversion in his/her name under the name of Hanman.

The remainder shall be examined with the inside of the Gu, so that there is no problem.

arrow