The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definites) was already filled out in Yangju-si, and the turf was planted on the surrounding land purchased by the Defendant, and it was natural that the turfed turfed turfed turfed up to D land, but the Defendant did not embling or planting turf.

E Land is a building of stone festivals in consultation with the competent authorities to prevent the outflow of earth and sand by the defendant.

2. The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① to build a stone shed higher than other land adjacent to the land which was used as an access road, it is inevitable to fill the constructed stone shed. In light of the aerial photography taken around around 2003, it appears that the aerial railway was used as an access road in 2005 and the aerial railway taken around around 2007, and it would have been cut off compared to other land after flat work. ② The defendant reported to the competent government office to prevent a disaster, and it is justifiable to view that the defendant was not a stone shed to build a stone shed. However, it cannot be viewed that the construction of a stone shed to prevent a disaster, and it is hard to view that the defendant unilaterally received a report from the competent government office to return the remaining land to the competent government office for the purpose of solving the building of a stone shed on the land which was owned by the defendant.