The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the portion of innocence in the original trial), satellite pictures, current status photographs, etc., even though the land in this case is obvious to fall under “the place of mountainous district” under the Mountainous Districts Management Act and the defendant committed a crime of violating the Mountainous Districts Management Act by diverting the mountainous district without permission, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts

2. Determination

A. A person who intends to convert the substance of the facts charged to a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, etc. in accordance with the classification of the type, size, etc. of the mountainous district prescribed by Presidential Decree, but around October 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) laid off concrete for the purpose of stockpiling a fence with the competent authority without obtaining permission from the competent authority on October 30, 2013; and (b) laid off concrete for the purpose of stockpiling the fence; and (c)

B. The lower court and the first instance court determined as follows, in order to punish “the act of diverting a mountainous district without obtaining permission for diverting a mountainous district” under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the pertinent land should be the land in a state stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, such as “the land collectively growing standing timber bamboo,” regardless of its land category. Even if the land category on the land cadastre is a forest and field, etc., even if the land category on the land cadastre becomes a forest and field, if the phenomenon as a mountainous district is lost and the state of loss cannot be deemed a temporary mountainous district

Supreme Court Decision 207Do10118 Decided July 10, 2008, etc. see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1018, Jul. 10, 2008) based on the legal principle, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, E who is a public official who directly conducted an on-site investigation