2. In light of the following: (a) the size of the Defendant’s fellingd is 2,317 square meters; and (b) the degree of the offense was not small due to the degree of 82 glue of the fellingd standing timber, etc.; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and method of the offense; and (d) the circumstances after the commission of the offense, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct as indicated in the instant records and pleadings, and the circumstances after the commission of the offense, the lower court’s punishment is not deemed unreasonable even if considering the circumstances alleged in the grounds for

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

Article 75(1) and (2) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act provides that when forestry products related to a crime of cutting standing timber, etc. without permission are confiscated and cannot be confiscated, the value equivalent thereto shall be collected. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on necessary confiscation and collection, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on necessary confiscation and collection. However, in this case where only the defendant appealed, the court below cannot render a new sentence of confiscation and collection in accordance with the principle on prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the above illegality does