2. In light of the judgment, there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the confession of the facts constituting the crime of this case and the fact that the defendant made a statement that his mistake is against their depth, the correction of violations among the judgments of the court below seems to have reached most of the restoration to the original state, the closure of the business of this case and the closure of the business of this case, and the fact that there is a dependent, etc.

However, in light of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones and preserving the natural environment surrounding the city through restricted acts in development restriction zones, the contents and methods of the crime, etc., the crime of this case committed by the defendant is not less than that of the crime of this case, and the defendant was punished four times or more due to the crime of the same or similar kind and has been subject to suspension of indictment for more than 2012, and it is highly likely that the crime of this case has been repeatedly committed without being aware of it. The crime of this case was committed again during the suspension period of execution due to the crime of this kind. In addition, considering the defendant's age, character, character, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, method and consequence of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, family relations, health conditions, etc., the defendant's argument is without merit.

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.