The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and 1) Construction of the road of this case and deforestation of standing timber were conducted D, and the Defendant did not participate therein.

2) The instant road is merely a repair or improvement of the existing roads under the customary law, and does not constitute the diversion of mountainous districts.

3) Even if the construction of the instant road and felling of standing timber fall under the diversion of mountainous districts, there is no illegality as it constitutes an exercise of the landowner’s right of passage over surrounding land.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

1) The Defendant, in collusion with D, extended and repaired the paths naturally formed in the instant mountainous district, agreed to construct a road that can move by a motor vehicle, and borne part of the expenses incurred therein. However, as the neighboring D actually performed road construction work, the Defendant committed construction of the instant road and cutting down standing timber in collusion with D.

It is reasonable to view it.

2) Although it can be recognized that the Defendant and D had been naturally formed prior to the construction of a road in the instant mountainous district, such a road is merely a path that local residents use at will, as the Defendant’s assertion, and according to photographs, immediately before the construction of the instant road, the vehicle operation was difficult.

It becomes a road under such customary law and its use without permission to convert into a mountainous district.

such circumstances may not be deemed to exist.

Even if it is possible to operate a motor vehicle, it is necessary to obtain permission for mountainous district conversion.

Therefore, the instant mountainous district is the sole basis of the Defendant’s assertion.