2. The instant crime was committed for profit-making purposes by piling up 70 containers without obtaining permission from the competent authority in the farmland with interest on the development-restricted zone, and the area where containers were stored is not less than 3,338 square meters, and such circumstances are not less than that of the crime. The Defendant, upon receiving a corrective order from the lower court on July 13, 2015, performed restoration of the original state with the storage of containers on the instant land, issued the corrective order from the lower court, and then again committed the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the error of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant restored the instant land to its original state; (c) the Defendant appears to have been engaged in a middle and high-tension trading business to have no high risk of reoffending; (d) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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. However, inasmuch as the defendant's appeal is deemed to be a clerical error of "not more than 50/100 of the value of the pertinent land" in Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.