2. The judgment of the court below recognized the crime of this case as the crime of this case and there is no specific criminal history other than the fine imposed as a violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on February 2007. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed without permission of the competent authority in order to use the room located in the development restriction zone as a general warehouse. The crime of this case is significant in the area of the violation; the defendant was punished by a fine due to the violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act in the process of acquiring the land in the development restriction zone; the defendant committed the crime of this case; the defendant continued the construction even though he was under control by a nearby resident's report while he was under construction of warehouse without permission; the defendant continued the construction even though he was under control by the competent authority three times or more, such crime was inferior, such as entering into a lease contract for warehouse on or around February 2015; the fact that there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances to be considered in the sentencing after the issuance of the judgment below; and the motive, process and result of the crime of this case;

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