A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to convert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the competent authorities for a specified purpose.

Nevertheless, from December 2, 2013 to November 2015, the Defendant changed the form and quality of the said mountainous district by using the excavation season without obtaining permission from the competent authority for the purpose of creating farmland for planting sublim trees, and converted the use of the said mountainous district to a mountainous district for the purpose of growing sublime trees.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A witness D or E's legal statement (a witness E shall use his/her testimony as evidence of guilt, since the defendant's right of defense is guaranteed through the process of witness or examination requested by the defendant and the defendant has been given an opportunity to state his/her opinion on the result

1. The actual condition survey report, - the illegal territorial map, - the annual aerial operator of the illegal land, - the on-site photographs of the illegal land;

1. Investigation Report (Attachment by Year for this mountainous district), - Annual airline dust (the Defendant claimed to the effect that the standing timber is not collectively cultivated on the land of this case around December 2013, and thus does not constitute mountainous district. However, even if the phenomenon as a mountainous district was lost, if the state of loss is temporary and it is possible to restore it to the original state, the land constitutes mountainous district. According to the above evidence, the land is a place where the standing timber is collectively cultivated, such as where mulberry trees are planted since it was destroyed by fire, etc., and where the standing timber is collectively raised, even if it was not cultivated around December 2013, as the Defendant’s assertion, even if the standing timber was not raised around December 2013, it is deemed that at the time the standing timber was temporarily lost due to fire, management, etc., and therefore, it is deemed that the land of this case constitutes mountainous district.).

1. Article 2 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act and Addenda to the Management of Mountainous Districts Act (Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 2016) for criminal facts.