2. The fact that the defendant, without obtaining permission, has a significant size of the mountainous district exclusively used, has been sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime, twice a suspended sentence due to a crime of double-class, and four times a fine is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant led to the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and that the defendant reported the closure of the business with the exclusive mountainous district without permission, and that the damaged mountainous district was partially restored.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments and records, there is no change in circumstances to determine different sentences from the lower court. As such, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is rejected.

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.