2. Determination of the illegality of the Defendant’s crime of this case seems to have been weak, and the illegally diverted area is not broad, the Defendant does not have any criminal record exceeding the same kind of criminal record and fine, and the economic situation is difficult, etc. are favorable circumstances.

However, in full view of the fact that it appears that the original return to the land of this case illegally diverted was not made, and there is no special change in circumstances that the original sentence and the punishment are different from the original judgment, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit [the defendant has long been using the land of this case as dry field.]

However, the area of the instant land (around 422 square meters) is calculated by excluding the portion used as dry field as above, so the above argument is without merit). 3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; however, the judgment of the court below is ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and the mountainous district management law in the column of the application of the statutes in the judgment below is corrected to “A mountainous district management law (amended by Act No. 41361, Dec. 2, 2016).”