2. It is recognized that the defendant's mistake is contrary to the recognition of the defendant, the restoration of the mountainous district from considerable expenses, and the defendant has no criminal record more than twice a fine.

However, considering the legislative intent of the Mountainous Districts Management Act with a view to contributing to preserving the national land environment by reasonably preserving and using the mountainous district, the crime of this case is highly likely to be criticized in that the nature of the crime is not weak, and that the defendant's exclusive use of the mountainous district is not less than 1,975 square meters without permission.

In light of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the character and conduct, the environment, and the circumstances after the crime, and the circumstances where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’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 by the court below (Provided, That the court below’s application of the Act and subordinate statutes to “the mountainous district management” of “the pertinent Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for criminal facts” is obvious that it is a clerical error in the mountainous district management law (amended by Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 2016). Thus, it is corrected ex officio.