A. Since the Defendant is merely preparing for cultivating crops in forest land already reclaimed and being used as farmland, it does not constitute a diversion of mountainous district.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as follows, namely, the fact that there were many standing timber on the remaining Yong-gun B, and the Defendant cut standing timber and incinerated standing timber on the part of the Defendant in preparation for farming, etc., each of the above land is classified not only into forest land but also into land already used as farmland, and it is difficult to view it as farmland because there is no standing timber, etc., the Defendant may recognize the fact that the use of mountainous district was converted by means of creating the mountainous district as farmland as farmland without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

B. The criminal defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime.

However, the Defendant created a mountainous district with a size of 2,488 square meters as its own land, and not only the area is reasonable, but also the crime liability is not easy for the Defendant to receive a report on the outbreak of a forest fire by retiring standing timber that has been cut.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. 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 decided as per Disposition.