Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to divert a mountainous district and any person who intends to change the form or quality of land shall obtain permission from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on September 2015, the Defendant cut approximately 50 square meters from 0.5m to 2m in height, and laid down concrete at 0.5m to 0,000 square meters of the forest in the place, and changed the form and quality of the land at the same time by installing a low temperature storage depot at the place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness D and E respective legal testimony;

1. Police statements of D or E;

1. Accusation against the violator of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the mountainous district management Act;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, written opinion, and report on investigation results;

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 53 of the Management of the relevant Mountainous Districts Act and the main sentence of Article 14(1) (a) (a point for the diversion of a mountainous district without permission) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (a point for the diversion of a mountainous district without permission) concerning the facts constituting an offense under Articles 140 subparagraph 1 and 56(1)2 (a) of the same Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes. Article 40 (Punishment on Crimes of Violating Mountainous Districts, the Punishment of which is heavier)

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the instant land was already reclaimed and used as a dry field or dry field, and that it is no longer a mountainous district since it has lost its substance as a place of mountainous district.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the part on the instant land prior to the Defendant’s act was a slope part where standing timber, etc. was growing and a fake part that exists in a mountain normally. The Defendant cut the said slope part and embling the embal part, and made it easy for the Defendant to embling the embal part, and the fact that part of the said part was a concrete package.

On the other hand, whether mountainous districts under the Mountainous Districts Management Act are located.