2. Although there are no circumstances to consider the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant was punished for the same crime, there is no history of the crime in addition to punishment three times by fine, confession and misjudgmentation of the crime in this case, and restoration of the diverted farmland to its original state, the circumstance does not seem to be that the defendant's liability is not less appropriate in light of the purpose of legislation of the Farmland Act to contribute to strengthening the agricultural competitiveness, balanced development of the national economy and preserving the environment by efficiently using and managing the diverted farmland. In light of the legislative intent of the Farmland Act to contribute to strengthening the agricultural competitiveness through efficient utilization and management of the diverted farmland, the balance between similar cases and sentencing, and other sentencing conditions of the defendant's age, character, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc. do not seem to be too unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by the court below is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.