The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: Each of the offenses committed against the Defendants (criminal defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and a fine of 7 million won);

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the lower court, without obtaining permission, rendered a sentence by taking into account the following factors: (a) the size of the development activity was significant; (b) the crime committed during the period of probation for the same crime; (c) Defendant B obtained permission to engage in development activities on the size of 7,490 square meters for the remaining 6,196 square meters; (d) the remaining 6,196 square meters was not submitted; and (e) the above Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment; (e) the process, means and consequence of the instant case;

However, in light of the fact that Defendant A appears to have violated the depth of the crime for a certain period of detention, and that there was a considerable approval of the plan for restoration on the part for which the above restoration was not performed, and that there seems to have been a delay in the creation of the walter at the wind under which Defendant A is bound, and that Defendant A is in the restoration of the original state, the sentence of the court below is unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the judgment of sentencing of the first instance in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

2) The lower court, without obtaining permission, determined a sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) under which the area of development activities was performed without permission was considerably unfavorable; (b) obtained permission to engage in development activities with respect to 7,490 square meters in F after the fact that there was no previous record of punishment; and (c) the above Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (d) the circumstances of various sentencing specified in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime

3) The sentencing alleged by Defendant B is unfair.