All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have already been developed in the mountain length around 2015 to cut standing timber, but the Defendant was merely engaged in the management of soil sand in order to restore damaged mountain paths, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute an act of creating mountain paths requiring a report under the Mountainous Districts Management Act. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty, and thus, was unlawful. 2) Since the lower court convicted the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment (4 million won of fine) that the Defendant sentenced to unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the original trial, which are the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the circumstances and satellite photographs (the investigative record No. 115 to 119 of the investigation record) that the court below found in the summary of evidence that the defendant committed an act of creating mountain paths necessary for reporting beyond the simple recovery of the existing mountain paths.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

3. We examine each of the Defendant and prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing regarding the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant created a mountain path without reporting required under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and that part of the crime is denied is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, it has expanded the existing paths in the process of restoring the mountain paths that the defendant had originally developed.