The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding the legal principles, provided that, on land inappropriate for the creation of grassland, the Defendant was allowed to use neighboring grassland by planting Arabic, etc. in order to prevent the outflow of soil and sand and the escape of livestock. This is an act within the scope of the development of grassland.

The plastic houses, assembly-type warehouses, and selling sperm installed by the defendant constitute incidental facilities for the development of grassland, and thus the installation of such facilities requires no separate permission from the park management office.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Natural Park Act is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Natural Park Act by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “determination on issues”.

In addition to the following circumstances cited by the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

① The Defendant’s act is difficult to view the Defendant’s act within the scope of permission to create grassland in light of the legislative intent of the Park Act in order to preserve the natural environment in a park solely on the grounds that the area of the part of the land where the Defendant reclaimed land and planted ice trees, etc. is up to 800m2, such as the prevention of soil erosion or livestock escape.

(2) The defendant shall reclaim 6,805m2 beyond the scope of the development of grassland so that he/she can grow livestock by cutting trees and planting grass.