The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A, in eight months of imprisonment, the defendant corporation AH is punished by a fine of eight thousand won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant AH Co., Ltd.: The sentence of the lower court (fine 10,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The act of changing the form and quality of land or converting the use of a mountainous district without permission is a crime that undermines the efficient management of the national land or the rational preservation and use of the mountainous district. The area of the exclusive use of the mountainous district exceeds 32,00 square meters, cutting and banking the mountainous district with cream and dump trucks, and cutting and dump trucks with the degree of damage to the mountainous district is more severe.

The fact that part of the mountainous district converted by the court below was restored to the original state, and that the competent administrative agency is exempted from the duty of restoring the remaining mountainous district, etc. is favorable.

In addition, in full view of the motive and circumstances of the Defendants, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age, character and conduct, the environment, etc. of Defendant A, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is justified.

3. The lower judgment is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal for the conclusion is with merit, and the following decision is rendered after pleading.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 54(2)1, 9(1)1 (a) of the Forest Protection Act; Articles 74(1)3, and 36(1) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act (a) (a point of unauthorized cutting of standing timber outside a forest protection zone); Article 53 Subparag. 1 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act; the main sentence of Article 14(1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act (a point of unauthorized cutting of standing timber outside a forest protection zone); national land.