2. On May 4, 2016, prior to the decision of the lower court, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and there is no circumstance to newly consider in the trial at the same time, and accordingly, the Defendant paid a compulsory performance due to a large-scale repair without permission of the instant case.

Considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, and thus, is not deemed unfair (the lower court, including the Defendant, sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for Q from among 23 Defendant 24 of the lower court’s judgment.

The amount of each fine was determined in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the scale of large-scale repair without permission, restoration of the original state, and efforts, and all of the judgment below's punishment against the joint defendants other than the defendant is finalized. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the "application of the statutes" in the judgment of the court below is "Article 108 (1) and Article 11 (1) of the Building Act" in "Article 108 (1) and Article 11 (1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 12701, May 28, 2014) is obvious that it is a clerical error in Article 108 (1) and Article 11 (1) of the former Building Act, and thus, it is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.