개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법위반
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won.
Defendant .
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence (the fine of 5 million won for each of the defendants A and C, the imprisonment of 4 months for each of the defendants B and the suspended execution of 2 years for each of the defendants) declared by the court below to the defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and C on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and C, the confession of the instant crime and the statement that Defendant A will repent in depth of the mistake, the Defendant A did not have the same criminal record and did not have any criminal record beyond the fine, and there are favorable circumstances such as restitution of the instant land before the instant indictment was instituted.
However, even though Defendant A knew that he could not properly use waste, etc. without permission from the competent authority, he leased the land in this case from Bana to her for a long time. In light of the substance and method of the crime, etc., the nature of the crime is not less than that of each fine of KRW 5 million in light of the contents and methods of the crime. The court below did not have any circumstance to deem that the determination of the court below is considerably unfair in light of the overall circumstances of the crime. Considering the balance with the general sentencing in the same and similar cases, as well as other various circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing of this case, such as the Defendant’s character and behavior, intelligence and environment, the motive and background of the crime in this case, the content and degree of the offense, the means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the defendants’ assertion is not reasonable, since each punishment imposed by the court below against Defendant A and C is inappropriate and too unreasonable.
3. Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing is likely to repeatedly criticize the crime even if he/she was punished several times due to the crime of the same or similar kind of crime, and attempts to prevent urban disorderly expansion and to preserve the natural environment surrounding the city through restrictions on activities in development-restricted zones.