All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) In fact, when misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the law, part of approximately 1,200 square meters of forest land in the wife population (hereinafter “the instant forest”) was lost as a mountainous district since around 2008, because it had already been developed as a dry field and being used as a dry field, and thus, Defendant’s act does not constitute a mountainous district diversion or development act.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. Determination on the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles by the Defendant’s assertion (1) Mountainous district management: (a) Mountainous district under the Mountainous district management Act refers to “land where standing timber or bamboo is collectively growing” or “land where standing timber or bamboo that is collectively growing is temporarily lost, etc.” excluding farmland, grassland housing, roads, and other land prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Mountainous District Management Act). In such cases, determination of whether a mountainous district is a mountainous district shall be based on the actual status of the pertinent land, notwithstanding any land category on the public record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do668, Dec. 13, 198); (b) Mountainous district is not used for collective growth of bamboo entering the mountainous district

Even if the change is not a final state, and it is possible to facilitate the recovery of collective growth, the land still constitutes a mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1018, Jul. 10, 2008, etc.). (2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the land category of the forest of this case as “standing” was partly damaged from the time when the defendant purchased the forest of this case, but it is deemed that there was a serious and broad form and form alteration to the forest of this case prior to the Defendant’s act of this case. The remaining F forest adjacent to the forest of this case is adjacent to the forest of this case.