2. The judgment of the defendant, who had been ordered to restore to the original state two times by developing acts without permission from the competent authority, is disadvantageous to the defendant that he did not restore to the original state until now. However, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor is groundless on the ground that the defendant's punishment is unreasonable since the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable since the defendant's punishment is too unreasonable since the construction of a high road near the land due to the frequent flood of agricultural crops as a result of the frequent construction of nearby apartment buildings, there are circumstances to consider it as being put up for correction. There is no criminal power before the defendant, and there is no previous criminal punishment power. In full view of various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as equity with the person punished as illegal development in the same area, equity with the defendant's age, character and behavior,

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor'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.