The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant was unable to exercise the right to possess and manage the building of this case at the time of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the corrective order against the defendant is unlawful, and there is a justifiable reason that the defendant failed to implement it due to lack of expectation

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion after specifically explaining in the "decision on the defendant's and his/her defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below on the same grounds as the grounds for appeal. If the court below reviewed the evidence legitimately adopted and investigated in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it in the appellate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In general, the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.