The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of execution of two years) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects the wrongness, and the removal of all the above ground buildings on the instant land.

However, in light of the legislative intent of the “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones” and the content, method, period, etc. of the crime committed by the Defendant in order to prevent urban disorderly expansion through restriction on activities in development restriction zones, and to preserve the natural environment surrounding the city, the crime quality of the crime of this case is not less than that of the Defendant. The Defendant is highly likely to be criticized for repeating repeatedly without being aware of the past record of punishment including suspended execution due to the same crime. In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant arguments and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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