The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence in October, and observation of protection) by the court below is excessively unreasonable (the defendant's defense counsel added a new assertion of mistake to the purport that "it is unfair to punish the defendant, who is his representative, as E, even though the defendant does not commit the violation of this case" at the second trial date of the court below. However, the defendant's defense counsel is deemed to have newly added a assertion of mistake to the purport that "it is unfair to punish the defendant, who is his representative, as E, on the ground of an appeal." However, after the notice of receipt of court records was delivered on August 5, 2015, it is presented to the defendant and his former defense counsel for the first time after the lapse of the submission period. The following circumstances indicated in the records of this case, i.e., the defendant's investigative agency and the court below's testimony that committed the violation of this case, such as the entry of the facts charged to the crime of this case, are sufficiently reliable, and there is no sufficient reason for the court's determination that the defendant did not affect the defendant's actual criminal facts of this case 16.

On the other hand, however, restricted activities in development-restricted zones shall prevent urban disorderly expansion and the natural environment surrounding cities.