The judgment below

The part against Defendant A is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to the grounds for appeal in light of the records, it is just that the court below did not prove all of the charges as to the act of cutting down trees 11gs without permission of the defendant E, E, F, G, H, andO, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the law of logic and experience and, contrary to the allegation in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to conspiracy or negligence in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the law of logic and experience.

2. The provisions of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act of the ex officio judgment against Defendant A shall apply to the case where the evaluation of acts deemed a crime in the past has changed due to the change of the legal ideology that served as the reason for the enactment of penal statutes, and the evaluation thereof was recognized and punished as a crime, or where the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes were amended or amended in light of reflect that excessive punishment was excessive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do270, Oct. 10, 2003; 97Do2682, Dec. 9, 197). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court convicted Defendant A of using the produce in the forest between December 12, 2012 and February 20, 2013, by applying Article 1(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 1371, Jun. 17, 2016; hereinafter “former Act”).

Article 9 (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes is Article 73 of the Forest Resources Act.