The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The Defendant’s act does not constitute “temporary use of a mountainous district” or “temporary use of a mountainous district” under Article 2 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, since it does not change the form and quality of a mountainous district, since it is not a package or bridge of a forest.

B. On February 2012, the Defendant visited the high viewing green belt division, which is the competent department, such as the management plan related to the damage of forests, etc., by the public official in charge of the public official in charge of the public official in charge of the public official in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, to first visit and request for permission of development.

Accordingly, the Defendant visited the building department of Gyeyang-gu Office, and the public official in charge said that “The construction of access roads does not constitute a change in the form and quality required for separate permission, as it is already subject to the permission for the creation of a tree tree on a stock farm site.”

The Defendant trusted the public official in charge of such a public official’s words and installed the access road to the instant case on February 2016.

Therefore, even if the defendant's act constitutes the diversion of mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the defendant's act constitutes a mistake in law with legitimate grounds and does not constitute a crime.

(c)

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal.

As to this, the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion by admitting the guilty guilty of the facts charged in this case by compiling the evidence as stated in its judgment.

In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the defendant acknowledged that the defendant engaged in an act of cutting down soil on the forest of this case without permission of the competent authority in order to establish access roads leading to the stock farm.