2. The judgment appears to have led to the confession of the facts charged in this case and reflects his mistake, the fact that there is no record of the same crime against the defendant, the part extended by the defendant has been restored to its original state in accordance with the corrective order, and the tenants have been ordered to immediately restore to the original state after leaving the original state, but the court below seems to have reduced the fine amount of the summary order considering the above circumstances favorable to the defendant, the nature of the crime in light of the facts, the size of the crime in this case, etc., the similar cases in the region where the crime in this case was committed, and the equity in sentencing should be considered. In full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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

[However, in the application of the law of the court below, it is obvious that the "Building Act" in the second sentence is a clerical error in the "former Building Act (amended by Act No. 12701, May 28, 2014)", and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.