beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to all the evidence of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground of factual misunderstanding, although the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that the Defendant had collected earth and rocks outside the permitted area, such as the site management at the place of the instant gathering plant.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the general director of the limited company D in Jung-Eup, who is in charge of the field management affairs of the above company.
Anyone who intends to collect earth or stone in a mountainous district in a forest, other than a state forest, shall obtain permission from the competent Mayor/Do Governor or the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu, and the same shall also apply to any revision to permitted matters
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not obtain permission to change the collection of earth and stones from the Si of Jung-Eup, the competent administrative agency, and collected soil and stones from approximately 3,929 square meters in mountainous districts adjacent to the neighboring area, other than the area permitted for permission for the collection of earth and stones, from July 2015 to August 20, 2015.
B. The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court: (a) the Defendant, at the lower court’s court’s trial, led to the statement of the D representative director that he would take charge of collecting earth and stones outside the permitted area, and (b) the Defendant would take charge of the production management of D, which takes place in the subcontractor’s work of collecting earth and stones, by promoting D’s production general manager around July 2015 to work in the instant place of business, and reporting the situation to the subcontractor’s work of collecting earth and stones, such as blasting, while working in the instant place of business, was reported to D’s representative director, etc.; and (c) the Defendant did not have the authority to exercise overall control over the production management of D, which takes place in the instant place of the instant place of business.