2. The instant crime is a favorable circumstance where the Defendant, without permission from the park management authority, expanded the land area of 482 square meters in order to use it for accommodation business within a natural park without permission, thereby changing the form and quality of the land by creating a site of 490 square meters, and rebuilding the structure by piling a stable in a river area at a higher level than the existing one without permission from the river management authority, and occupied the land of 933 square meters without permission, and the Defendant recognized all of the instant crime and reflected it, and the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same crime.

However, in order to operate a lodging business, the Defendant has reached approximately 972 square meters in total in a natural park, and the area of land occupied without permission is 933 square meters in excess of the degree of violation. In light of the legislative purpose of the Natural Parks Act that intends to preserve natural ecosystem, nature, and cultural landscape in a park area, this crime is not easy. The Defendant did not remove the axis that has been reconstructed within a river area as above, and the Defendant did not remove it without permission, and occupied the river area without permission by installing a square, steel props, bombs, light bombs, etc., and it does not seem to have any evidence to recognize that the land illegally created was restored to its original state. Considering the Defendant’s age, character, and environment, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the punishment imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit.