A. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor (three million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case leads to the disorderly expansion of the city, and is against the preservation of the natural environment surrounding the city and the ensuring of the healthy living environment for urban citizens, and requires a more severe punishment. The defendant changes the form and quality without permission of the competent authority, and the area of the land is considerable, etc. that are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, there is no specific punishment power except for the punishment for suspended sentence due to other crimes, and the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in order to improve soil quality because it is difficult for him to see the soil quality of the land in this case due to the lack of good soil, etc. at the time, and the defendant appears to have been exposed to the control official while changing the form and quality of the land in this case, and was found to have failed to gain any particular benefits, and most of the illegal changes in form and quality were restored to the original state in this case, and the defendant was disgept and reflects his mistake.

In full view of such various factors of sentencing and other various conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, family relations, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is difficult to be deemed to be too weak or unreasonable, and each of the above arguments by the prosecutor and the Defendant are without merit.

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