A. In 2004, the Defendant: (a) obtained work permission in around 2004; and (b) created the instant work route; (c) did not restore the original state to the original state; and (d) used the work route as it was; and (c) did not create a new work course around 2015.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the defendant guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Of the sentencing division, the sentence imposed by the lower court (three million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Although the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court did not accept the said assertion.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's misunderstanding of the above facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are without merit.

3. The lower court appears to have sentenced the Defendant to the punishment by taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the motive, circumstance, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and records of punishment, and the matters regarding the conditions of sentencing, statutory punishment, and sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no special circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, nor there is no special circumstance.

Therefore, the two kinds of punishment of defendants cannot be accepted.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so ordered.