A. In order to enter a vehicle for wintering construction, the Defendant asserted that there was no change in the form and quality of the land.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable to deem the sentencing unfair.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on these evidence in light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the land of this case was filled with recycled aggregate for the purpose of opening access roads to each of the above land, and the form, size, and the period during which the restoration was not made, it is reasonable to deem that the form and quality of each of the above land became difficult to recover beyond temporary external change and beyond temporary external change (in addition, the crime of changing the form and quality of the land without permission under Articles 140 subparagraph 1 and 56 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is established as a crime of changing the form and quality of the land without permission under Article 140 subparagraph 1 and Article 56 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, by cutting, raising, or stopping the land or reclaiming public waters, making it difficult to restore it to its original state by de facto changing the form and quality of the land.

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s restitution of the instant land after the instant crime, as alleged by the Defendant, cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8607, Jan. 24, 2008).

Even if it does not affect the establishment of the instant crime, we affirm the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges.