2. The fact that the Defendant’s exclusive land reaches a considerable scale, the Defendant violated the Farmland Act over two times in the same place, and the Defendant’s failure to complete restoration to the original state is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the land of this case is subject to the incorporation into the Railroad Construction Project (the defendant appears to be unable to implement restoration work, and the defendant is no longer unable to utilize the land of this case when administrative vicarious execution, etc. is completed), the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and against his mistake, and the defendant has been punished twice by a fine, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime as the crimes of this case, etc. in favor of the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the character and conduct of the defendant, the environment, the motive, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is deemed appropriate as a punishment within the scope of its discretion.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.