2. The crime of this case by the defendant, without permission, is deemed to have changed the purpose of use of land, buildings, etc., including farmland in development restriction zones, installation of structures, change of the form and quality of land, and has changed the form and quality of land differently from the permitted matters, and the criminal liability is not exceptionally imposed in light of

The defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected the mistake, and was punished for the same kind of crime.

The defendant applied for the maintenance project of damaged land to the competent authority in order to maintain the illegally used facilities in accordance with the related Acts and subordinate statutes.

In addition, considering the various factors of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the defendant's age, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, as it is obvious that "The Farmland Act" is a clerical error in the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 16073, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) in the context of the application of the law of the court below, the decision to rectify it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.]