Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant obtained approval for a forest management plan from January 28, 2015 to March 30, 2015, for the implementation of geographical respect work (the removal of miscellaneous trees or lumber trees for artificial co-management) in order to transplant lost trees from the Namwon-si B from March 28, 2015. However, in order to cultivate mountainous districts by using dumpers, etc., the Defendant must obtain permission for mountainous district conversion from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, from February 10, 2015 to November 2015, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the said competent authority, re-developed the said mountainous district without permission, and converted the mountainous district to convert the mountainous district by excluding 2,712 square meters of the said mountainous district by using the digging season.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. The application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to the location map of illegal forest damage, landscape photographs of forests prior to the destruction of forests, and current status of survey of

1. Article 53 subparagraph 1 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act and the main sentence of Article 14 (1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is considerably wide in size of the mountainous district exclusively used by the defendant, and that the mountainous district exclusively used by the defendant seems not completely restored to its original state until now is unfavorable to the defendant.

However, it appears that the defendant committed the crime in this case because he was aware of the fact that he committed the crime in his name and reflects the fact that he was committed, there was no previous conviction other than fine, and there was no record of the same kind of crime, that the defendant was unable to accurately understand the relevant provisions in the course of his existence work, and that most of the things that the defendant would be expected to be restored to the original state will be restored to the original state in the future, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and considering all other factors of sentencing specified in the argument in this case,

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.