2. In determining whether the Defendants requested civil engineering works from the owner of the mountainous district or the beneficial owner of the mountainous district who is the applicant for permission to convert the mountainous district and performed civil engineering works for the use of the mountainous district of this case, there are circumstances to be considered. The Defendants’ failure to obtain the same criminal records and imprisonment without prison labor or more punishment is favorable to the Defendants

However, in light of the fact that the act of diversion of mountainous districts, such as the instant crime, can cause serious damage to the natural environment and large-scale disasters, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendants; the size and degree of the area of the mountainous district exclusively used by the Defendants without permission; even if the Defendants do not correspond to the applicant for permission for diversion of mountainous districts, the Defendants’ actual act of diversion of mountainous districts requires punishment corresponding to the act so long as the Defendants actually committed the act of diversion of mountainous districts; the complainants in the instant case want to be punished against the Defendants; and other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and environment, as indicated in the instant records and arguments, are considered, it cannot be deemed unfair for

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