Manure Spreading in Protected Moor Area: Activity Offense vs. Result-Based Harm

An individual was convicted for fertilizing or spreading manure in a protected moor area, violating regulations that restricted activities in that zone to grazing and mowing. The defendant appealed, arguing that the offense under the relevant regulation required proof of actual damage to the protected area. The court rejected this contention, reasoning that the specific phrasing in the statute's second paragraph, which criminalizes violations of listed prohibitions *without* destroying or severely damaging the protected area, serves only to distinguish it from the first paragraph (which addresses destruction or severe damage) and establishes a *risk or activity offense* where a concrete detrimental outcome is not a necessary element for conviction.