The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant’s 330m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) out of the forest land as indicated in the facts charged, and then accumulated stone festivals. However, even though the Defendant knew that the instant land was a State-owned land, and selected a method to minimize damage to prevent rainwater from flowing into the Defendant’s farmland, and he was unaware of whether to obtain permission for conversion of a mountainous district.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were duly adopted and investigated by the evidence. ① The defendant himself gradizes the land of this case, which is a quasi-preserved mountainous district without the permission of the competent government agency. ② It appears that the defendant argued that the defendant did not have intention because he had knowledge of whether the land of this case was private land at the time, ② the person who intends to convert a mountainous district, private land or private land, is hard to accept as his assertion because he obtained the permission of the competent government agency. ③ The error of law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act does not mean a simple legal site, but it is generally a crime, but it is not punishable if there is a justifiable reason for the defendant to recognize it as a crime under laws and regulations in his special cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do873, Jan. 13, 2006).