2. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the facts charged in this case; (b) it appears that the Defendant’s act of committing each of the instant crimes in a water-source protection area is difficult to take into account the Defendant’s economic situation; (c) however, in light of the area of the building without permission or the period of release of daily sewage, etc., the Defendant appears to have resided in the instant unauthorized building within the water-source protection area; (d) the damage caused by the release of daily sewage would continue to exist; (e) the Defendant had a high record of criminal punishment including four times before the suspension of execution; (d) there was no change of circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower court was rendered; and (e) there was no other change of circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be deemed to be unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, even if considering

3. Accordingly, 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 groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.