Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall divert a mountainous district without obtaining permission to divert such mountainous district.

From May 2016 to July 2016, the Defendant: (a) had C, an engineer of heavy equipment, remove standing timber on a total of 12,060 square meters in addition to attached Table 12,060 square meters, without obtaining permission for mountainous district conversion; and (b) converted the use of mountainous district into mountainous district, by having C, an engineer of heavy equipment, remove standing timber on a total of 12,060 square meters

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that the actual status of illegal forest damage in the status of illegal forest damage is not included in the mountainous district because the land in this case was a road prior to the transfer thereof. The defendant asserts to the effect that the status of illegal forest damage is not included in the mountainous district because it was a road prior to the use of the land in this case.

Whether a mountainous district is "a mountainous district" under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act shall be determined according to the actual status of the relevant land regardless of the items in public records, and the form of the mountainous district has been lost.

Even if the lost state is temporary and it is possible to restore it to the original state, the land shall be deemed a mountainous district (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1979, Nov. 29, 2012). Since part of the damaged land is used as a road in the past, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a mountainous district temporarily loses the phenomenon as a mountainous district.

However, in light of evidence, such as aerial photography, the Defendant’s removal of standing timber and implementation of flatization work at least did not lose the shape or function as the mountainous district, and the mountainous district can be restored to its original state.

It is reasonable to view it.

Since the land of this case is deemed to fall under “a mountainous district” as prescribed by the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the Defendant’s assertion.