The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects on the fact that the Defendant did not have any particular criminal record in addition to one fine, and that the Defendant tried to restore the form and quality of the land to its original state.

However, in light of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding cities through restricted activities in development restriction zones, etc., and the contents and methods of the instant crime, the nature of the crime is not good.

In addition, the lower court’s sentencing is determined to be appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too unreasonable, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively takes account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the previous theory.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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