The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., in a case where the Defendant was punished twice by a fine (e.g., KRW 3 million, KRW 7 million) due to the act of violating the Farmland Act committed in the same place from around August 1989 to December 20, 2005 at the same place, and committed again the instant crime without restoring to the original state, and did not take any measures up to the appellate court. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 3 million (e.g., KRW 7 million) and did not take any measures, the sentence of the lower court (e.g., fine of KRW 7 million) is deemed unfair.

2. Although there is a need to punish the Defendant more strictly according to the circumstances as alleged by the prosecutor, the Defendant did not take any more measures to relocate the place of business and restore farmland to a construction competition where the spouse's disease and aggravated construction is caused by the landslide in Myeongsan, and the Defendant appeals this last time, the Defendant is asserting that the workplace should be moved from the court of first instance and the farmland will be restored to its original state around June 2013, and in light of other factors of sentencing as indicated in the argument in this case, it is deemed appropriate to maintain a fine by the court below only once, and the above assertion is not accepted.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.