2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the mistake, had family members to support, and the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for a fine once.

However, if the defendant intends to dispose of the land sold in lots before the support institution completes the installation of support facilities, the crime of this case is against Article 51 of the Act on the Development and Operation of Logistics Facilities, which provides that the land shall be transferred to the operator or the logistics complex management institution, and its nature is less severe.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s profit derived from the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and the previous theories, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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.