2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and is against himself; (b) the defendant has no particular history of punishment; and (c) the fact that he appears to have restored to the original state after crackdown.

However, since the defendant elected a building without permission from the competent authority, it is inevitable to punish the defendant accordingly. The court below seems to have determined the punishment by reducing the fine of the summary order by considering the favorable circumstances as seen earlier, and there is no reason to further reduce the sentence in the court below. In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which were expressed in the records and the theory of large-scale repair, including the scale of large-scale repair, it is difficult to see that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the Supreme Court Decision (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: Provided, That the application of Article 108(1), Article 11(1), and Article 11(1) of the Building Act to “Article 108(1) and Article 11(1) of the former Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13785, Jan. 19, 2016)” in the application of Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure to “Article 108(1) and Article 11(1) of the same Act.”