The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the conviction part of the judgment below), the Defendant merely received an original restoration order for the instant forest from the Dong-gu Office in Gwangju, and limited to the degree of flatization work of the said forest within 50 centimeters high. This does not constitute a change in the form and quality of land prohibited by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Even if it constitutes a change in the form and quality of land, it constitutes a minor act permissible even if it constitutes a change in the form and quality, and does not constitute a mountainous district prohibited by

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, five million won of fine, observation of protection, community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence of the prosecutor 1, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the defendant had I cut 1 kin tree in each forest of this case. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the reasoning for ex officio appeal regarding the guilty portion of the judgment below prior to the judgment of the court below.

Where the form and quality of land are changed without obtaining permission from the competent authority, a violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts due to the unauthorized diversion of mountainous districts, and a violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act due to the alteration of the form and quality of land without permission constitutes several crimes, and the crime of violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act constitutes a common concurrence relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12069, Dec. 9, 2010, etc.). Nevertheless, the lower court has a substantive concurrence relationship

In light of the above, the punishment for concurrent crimes was imposed by aggravated punishment. Of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.