A. In light of the fact-finding and legal principles, the Defendant was engaged in development activities to create a dry field to gypt ginseng farmers at the time of the instant case, and thus, it should be excluded from the subject of permission for development activities on the ground that the instant act by the Defendant constitutes “a change in the form and quality of land as prescribed by Presidential Decree for cultivation” under Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning and Utilization Act”). Therefore, the instant act by the Defendant does not violate

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the defendant guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Of the sentencing division, the sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged the same purport in the judgment of the court below as to the misapprehension of the legal principles, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating in the item "the judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion". In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

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

B. The lower court seems to have sentenced the Defendant to the punishment by taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the motive, circumstance, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and the record of punishment, and the statutory punishment, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There is no special circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, nor there is no special circumstance.

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.