The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (unfair sentencing) stated only the unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal, and on the grounds of appeal No. 16 of May 16, 2017, the appellate brief stating the grounds of appeal was not timely filed on May 16, 2017, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes, as seen below’s ex officio determination, and thereby affected the sentencing of the lower court. Therefore, the grounds of appeal stating the grounds of appeal

However, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the number of crimes as grounds for appeal clearly distinguish the grounds falling under Article 361-5 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the sentencing unfair is clearly distinguishable from the grounds falling under Article 361-5 subparagraph 15 of the same Article. The above grounds for appeal include only the contents related to the circumstances such as the Defendant’s closing of the restaurant and removing the relevant facilities, and the court’s 2017No41 case cited by the defense counsel is reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the relation of the relation of the receipt of crimes and determined the punishment through a new hearing, and the difference in the number of crimes is not considered to be an element

The sentence of the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In I, which is a water source protection zone where E water sources are located without permission from the competent authority, the Defendant used the part of 209 square meters of the first floor of the ground, which is an animal and plant-related facility, to a general restaurant. The above act constitutes both a violation of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Areas subject to Development Restriction.

Ultimately, the defendant's act constitutes two crimes, and the above two crimes are in a mutually competitive relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the lower court considered the two crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and aggravated concurrent crimes.