A. Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”)’s punishment (one year and four months of imprisonment”) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. With regard to the judgment of the court below, each sentence (the part concerning the crime of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the crime in the judgment of the court below): Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of suspended execution, and 2-B of the crime in the judgment of the court below (the part concerning the crime of paragraph (b) of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below: 6 million won

2. We examine ex officio the prosecutor's ex officio determination of the facts constituting the crime of paragraphs (1), (2), (1) and (3) of the first and second original judgments and the defendant's reasons for appeal prior to the judgment on the prosecutor's ex officio.

On the judgment of the first instance, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the second instance, and the court of the first instance decided to consolidate each of the above appeal cases with one another.

However, among the original judgment of the first and the second original judgment, each of the crimes under paragraphs (1), (2), (a) and (3) of the same Article is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, each of the above parts among the first and second original judgment cannot be maintained any longer.

3. The lower court rendered a judgment on the prosecutor’s appeal on the part concerning the crime No. 2-B of the crime indicated in the judgment of the second lower court, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant and favorable circumstances, sentenced to a fine of KRW 6 million on this part.

In full view of the factors that serve as the conditions for sentencing in the trial, in particular, the fact that the defendant is working to restore the mountainous district which has exclusively been used without permission and the fact that the defendant is working to restore the mountainous district to its original state without permission, there is no circumstance that the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion even if considering that the crime during the period of suspension of execution has been committed, or that maintaining the sentencing of the court below is unreasonable.

In addition, the circumstances and results of the crime of this case, the age of the defendant after the crime.