2. The fact that the Defendants recognized the instant crime and the Defendants completed the restoration to the original state of the instant land (former Sung-gun E, F) is an element for sentencing favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants had a previous record of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Determination and Management of Areas subject to Development Restriction once, and the land at issue in the previous record is included in E-land among the instant land, and the area of land with its form and quality altered without permission is a factor for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendants.

The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendants by comprehensively taking into account the above elements of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be newly considered in this court compared with the lower court.

In addition, the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion and is not recognized as unfair because it is too unreasonable, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.