Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, and by a fine of five million won for Defendant B.

However, the defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

1. A person who intends to convert a mountainous district by a defendant shall obtain permission from the competent administrative agency for a specified purpose;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from August 2012 to November 2012, 2012, performed the construction of a site for the construction of a new house in the name of a stock company in the name of the Defendant, which was actually operated by the Defendant, conducted mountainous district conversion without obtaining permission by means of cutting standing trees and installing a retaining wall to indicate housing boundaries by using a digging hole, etc. in a single unit of land outside the permitted area, such as D, C, and E, beyond the permitted area.

2. Defendant B, at the time and place specified in the above paragraph (1), the Defendant, who is the actual representative of the Defendant, conducted conversion of a mountainous district without obtaining permission for conversion of a mountainous district as stated in the above paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the relevant statutes to actual survey reports, location maps, sites of illegal mountainous districts for conversion, photographs of neighboring forests, reports on illegal mountainous districts for conversion, and ground plans of actual status;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Subparagraph 1 of Article 53 and Article 14 (1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act;

(b) Defendant B: Articles 56, 53 subparag. 1, and 14(1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act;

1. Defendant A who is suspended from execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: Although the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime in this case in light of the size of the mountainous district damaged by the crime in this case’s sentencing reason under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, efforts to restore it to the original state after recognizing the error, there are no criminal records of the same kind, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime.