The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not perform an act of changing the form and quality of the mountainous district only after removing small quantities of the beginning of the mountainous district of this case and sacrhs.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the meaning and limit of a legitimate act and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant's act of misunderstanding the legal principles is dismissed as an act that does not violate the social norms and is thus dismissed as a result of the omission of illegality or the absence of punishment pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

C. The sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

(a) Change of the form and quality of a mountainous district to a decision on a mistake of facts means changing the form and quality of a mountainous district into an outer form and making it difficult to reinstate the mountainous district due to such changes, by cutting, filling, or suspending the mountainous district;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do21 Decided April 23, 2002, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as having de facto changed the form and quality of the mountainous district into an outer shape by locating the soil, etc. of the mountainous district beyond simple miscellaneous and miscellaneous removal, and in light of the defendant's methods of damaging mountainous district and the degree of damage, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the mountainous district of this case was naturally restored, and therefore, it is difficult to restore the form and quality of the mountainous district to the original state (it is reasonable that the defendant argued that the mountainous district of this case was naturally restored, but even according to the image of each photograph (Evidence No. 1-4) submitted by the defendant at the court below, it seems that the cut portion remains as it remains). This part of the defendant's assertion is without

B. The Defendant’s act also constitutes the Defendant’s act.