2. The appellate court’s judgment is reasonable to respect the first-class sentencing judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first-class judgment, and the first-class sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

The fact that the defendant restored the damaged area after filing a complaint after the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant, but the fact that the defendant was not damaged through the temporary use of the mountainous district of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant.

As above, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant, comprehensively taking into account the defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the crime, means and consequence, etc., the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair due to excessive circumstances.

Unlike the fact that the sentencing conditions have been changed in the court;

There are no circumstances to see.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.