All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant made a statement to the effect that he asserted the facts constituting the crime Nos. 2 and 3 as indicated in the judgment of the court below on the trial date of the court below. The reasons for appeal shall be settled by taking into account the written opinion and various documents submitted by the Defendant to the court below on October 23, 2015, the reasons for appeal submitted by the Defendant to the court of appeal, various documents, and the contents of the statement at the court of original trial and the court of original trial.

1) Regarding the facts constituting the crime No. 2 of the judgment below, the Defendant changed Sto a forest land from Andong-si on October 17, 201 to an orchard, and on the same day, the above land was merged into F land in Ansan-si (see, e.g., trial record). The Defendant was selected as a business entity in 2015, and was engaged in flat work to operate an orchard, and thus, it should be deemed as having already obtained permission, and it cannot be deemed as having engaged in unauthorized development activities.

2) As to the facts constituting the crime No. 3 as indicated in the judgment below, the ownership preservation registration was completed in the name of the Republic of Korea around November 14, 1996 with respect to the Ansan U land, and the land category was a road, but its registration was erroneous. In fact, the above land is the land where the defendant was possessed by his parents, and its form and quality are the road.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be seen as changing the form and quality of a road zone without permission.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service, 80 hours) by the court below is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant set up a large of 3 meters of the FF land in Ansan-si, using a boomer, etc. (No. 14, 15, 49, and 52 of the Evidence No. 618 (so-called “Evidence 615”), and such an act constitutes development activities, and the Defendant constitutes development activities from a person entitled to permission.