The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months and the fine of twenty thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination, where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no record of having been punished for the same crime before the instant crime was committed, and there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than the suspension of execution, except for the punishment sentenced twice after 200, which was sentenced twice by a fine, etc., favorable to the Defendant.

However, once the forest is damaged, it is difficult to recover the damaged area, or requires a long time, and the area of the converted mountainous district is considerably wide without permission by the defendant. The purpose of the crime of this case is to sell the converted mountainous district to a third party and obtain considerable profits. The purpose of the crime of this case seems to have been land development and land price increase. In addition, even though the defendant was prosecuted for the crime of this case, even though the fact that the defendant was ordered to restore the original state to the cost of approximately KRW 12,250,000,000, the total construction cost was 82,50,000,000 won and submitted the false contract and tax account statement to this court to the court to restore the original state to the original state, it is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of each of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing factors expressed in the process of the trial and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be too unfair.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.