2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, where there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and where the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). After each of the instant crimes, the Defendant restored the damaged forest.

There is no record of punishment for the defendant for the same crime, and there is no criminal record other than the punishment for a fine imposed once every 32 years.

It seems that the current economic situation of the defendant is not good.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, in order to preserve the environment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, it is necessary to strictly punish illegal mountainous district diversion activities.

The damage scope of the defendant's exclusive use of mountainous district is considerably high when the area is 8,778 square meters.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable and is too unreasonable.

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