The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) that the court below sentenced against the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in August, and eight hours of community service order) are too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The summary of the instant facts charged, around August 8, 2012, the Defendant destroyed mountainous districts to the extent of KRW 3,649,670 in total, KRW 3,98,560 in total, including KRW 3,98,560 in total, and KRW 3,98,560 in total, including KRW 3,69,670 in total, and KRW 3,98,560 in total, by cutting down trees and miscellaneous trees in the same mountainous district, and cutting down land to cut cirs, around August 2012, without paying expenses incurred in creating forest replacement resources to the Pyeongtaek-gun-gun Office, Gangseo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the place where the instant mountainous district was applied for the purpose of new construction of a single house by B,

Accordingly, the Defendant did not pay expenses for forest replacement and diverted the forest area of 2,921 square meters in total.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s statement, the police interrogation protocol of each police officer’s interrogation of the Defendant, B, E, and F, and written investigation statement, and written estimates, and ordered the Defendant to suspend the execution of 2 years in August and provide community service for 80 hours.

C. We examine the judgment of the political party, and the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). The Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime in the police investigation and the lower court’s judgment, and was sentenced to conviction at the lower court on the sole ground of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant filed an appeal on the sole ground of unfair sentencing. However, the instant crime was committed on the first date for pleading of the