The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the land that the Defendant changed the form and quality was used as a broad passage to the extent that the freight would pass from before the towing, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have reached a certain course of driving on the road, which can sufficiently restore aggregate to the road by hand, the off stone can be restored to the road. The amount of offland used by the Defendant was limited to two to three square meters, the amount of offland used by the Defendant was cut off in 2 to three square meters, the Defendant laid off the off aggregate around May to June of the same year, and removed all of the off aggregate around August of the same year, and the Defendant did not have an intention to change the form and quality.

However, the court below's judgment that found Defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1,500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

(1) According to the aerial photography (Evidence Nos. 16 through 19) and the statement protocol on D, etc. on the land of this case, it appears that the width of the road around the around 2015 seems to have been wide enough to pass by cargo cars.

(2) 피고인은 수사기관에서, 비가 오면 위 도로가 질퍽 해져서 트럭 등이 지나갈 수 없었기 때문에 이를 개선하고자 위 도로 상에 10루 베 분량의 쇄석 골재를 깔아 도로를 포장하였다고

was stated.

Due to the defendant's act, the above road was packaged in a flat and broad manner, and the shape was changed.

(3) On May 2015 to June 2015, the Defendant packaged a road by sub-fluence aggregate, and restored it to its original state on August 2016.

In full view of the above facts of recognition, the defendant did not permit the development-restricted zone.