The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the penalty (5 million won of a fine) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are the following: (a) the Defendant was in the first instance, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and (b) the Defendant appears to have expressed an attitude to recognize and reflect all the instant crimes; and (c) the Defendant appears to have not extracted standing timber without permission, but to have agreed on mountain and

On the other hand, the fact that the number of standing timber extracted by the defendant is significant, that the defendant has a 19-time criminal power, and that the defendant has been punished by a fine for the same kind of crime, etc. is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings, there is no change of circumstances that can determine the sentence different from the original judgment, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair since the sentence imposed by the Defendant is unlimited. Thus, the Defendant’

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Article 75 (1) and (2) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act provides that the value of forest products related to a crime under Article 74 (1) 3 of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act shall be referred to as if they are confiscated and cannot be confiscated. Nevertheless, since the court below omitted this, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on necessary confiscation and collection. However, in this case where only the defendant appealed, it cannot be sentenced to new confiscation and collection pursuant to the principle on prohibition of disadvantageous change under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, the above illegality does not affect the judgment, and therefore, it does not reverse the judgment of the court below on the ground thereof.