[1] In a case where a mining right holder who has obtained approval of mining plans gathers rocks containing minerals for fine aggregate extraction, whether a permit for quarrying under Article 90-2(1) of the former Forestry Act should be obtained separately (affirmative), and in a case where a mining right holder extracts aggregate regardless of mineral extraction, whether a permit for aggregate extraction under Article 22(1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act should be obtained (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that an act of processing and selling rocks by cutting them in a strip mining process, regardless of the extraction of tin stones, by using a plan for mining tin stones with approval, violates Article 90-2 (1) of the former Forestry Act and Article 22 (1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act

[1] Even if a mining right holder obtained approval of a mining plan, if a stone containing the relevant mineral is collected for fine aggregate extraction, he/she shall obtain separate permission for quarrying under Article 90-2 (1) of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 6382 of Jan. 26, 2001). If a mining right holder extracts aggregate incidentally in the course of mining minerals, he/she shall obtain permission for extraction of aggregate, but the permission for extraction of aggregate is not required if aggregate is extracted regardless of the extraction of minerals.

[2] The case holding that an act of processing and selling rocks by cutting them in a strip mining process, regardless of the extraction of tin stones, using a plan for mining tin stones that was approved, violates Article 90-2 (1) of the former Forestry Act and Article 22 (1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act

[1] Articles 90(1), 90-2(1), and 118(1)4 of the former Forestry Act (Amended by Act No. 6382, Jan. 26, 2001); Articles 22(1)1, and 49 subparag. 3 of the Aggregate Extraction Act; Articles 5(1), 47, and 47-2 of the Mining Industry Act / [2] Articles 90(1), 90-2(1), and 118(1)4 of the former Forestry Act (Amended by Act No. 6382, Jan. 26, 2001); Articles 22(1)1, and 49 subparag. 3 of the Aggregate Extraction Act; Articles 5(1), 47, and 47-2 of the Mining Industry Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Do2107 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 291), Supreme Court Decision 98Do588 delivered on December 23, 1998 (199Sang, 283), Supreme Court Decision 99Do1981 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1843)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Suspension-type et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2001No366 delivered on June 19, 2001

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Even if a mining right holder has obtained approval of a mining plan, when collecting rocks containing the relevant mineral as fine aggregate, he/she shall obtain separate permission to extract aggregate under Article 90-2(1) of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 6382, Jan. 26, 2001; hereinafter the same shall apply below) (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do1981, Jul. 23, 199). In cases where a mining right holder extracts aggregate incidentally in the course of mining minerals, he/she shall obtain permission to extract aggregate even if he/she does not obtain permission to extract aggregate (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do588, Dec. 23, 1998).

In the same purport, the decision of the court below is proper to determine that the defendants' act of cutting rocks by cutting them in a strip mining method regardless of the extraction of tin stones without obtaining authorization for the plan for mining of tin stones violates Article 90-2 (1) of the former Forestry Act and Article 22 (1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act, and it is not erroneous in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal is not acceptable.

2. Meanwhile, it is proper that the court below decided that the defendants' act did not constitute a crime under the law and does not constitute a case where the defendants misleads the defendants to believe that his act did not constitute a crime under the law, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of law, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, this part

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)