The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to Article 4(1) of the Addenda to the Mining Industry Act as amended by Act No. 9882, Jan. 27, 2010, the gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor means that the previous provision is applied in cases where a mining plan was authorized prior to the enforcement of the amended Mining Industry Act, and that the proviso to Article 5(1) is not applicable in this case. In this case, the penal provision is a criminal provision, which is contrary to the penal provision, and the provision on ownership, which is the premise of punishment provision, is a violation of the penal provision, and it cannot be deemed that there was a change in the legal ideology of the penal provision on the crime of property damage under the Criminal Act at the

2. Determination

A. The court below found that "Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Act provides that if the act does not constitute a crime due to the alteration of the law after the crime was committed, it shall be subject to the new law, and the alteration of the above law shall include all changes in all the laws that form the premise of the application of the Criminal Act as well as the Criminal Act. Such alteration under Article 5 (1) of the Mining Industry Act shall be based on anti-sexual consideration following the alteration of the legal ideology in light of the reason for the amendment. In accordance with Article 5 (1) of the amended Mining Industry Act, even if the victim's mining area is within the victim's mining area, minerals separated from the land in the course of performing civil works to build a golf course of J, a land owner, as shown in the facts charged, falls under the proviso to the same Article, and the facts charged on the premise that the said mineral owned by the victim constitutes a case where the act does not constitute a crime by the alteration of the law after the crime was committed, it shall be acquitted as to the facts charged in this case.