The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant indicted the Defendant on the ground that he opened a road on the 700 square meters of the total area of 1,600 square meters of Gwangju-si, D, E, and F, a mountainous district within a development-restricted zone and a natural park zone (hereinafter “instant land”). The remainder of 90 square meters of land was reclaimed, thereby changing the form and quality of the instant land.

① However, the Defendant did not open a road on a 700 square meters portion of the instant land, and did not change the form and quality thereof. ② Since the Defendant’s land in Gwangju City was leased from November 2006 to December 30, 2017 by the State for the purpose of farming, the Defendant developed the land to plant trees at that place.

Even if it does not conflict with the positive law, it is not against the positive law.

(3) The Defendant’s partial reclamation of land (D, E, and F) is an error in the boundary of the adjoining land C, which the Defendant leased, and thus, does not constitute a crime, but does not exceed 900 square meters in total.

Nevertheless, since the court below found all of the facts charged in this case guilty, it erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Even if not, on the basis of an unreasonable sentencing decision, the sentence imposed by the court below (7 million won of fine) on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the judgment of the court below are as follows: “The Defendant, without obtaining permission from the competent authority on February 2013, 2013, embling and cutting land with a size of approximately 1,600 square meters in total among the land of the instant case, which is a mountainous district within a development-restricted zone and a natural park zone, in order to plant a standard tree, etc., and changed the form and quality of land by cutting off, etc., and converted mountainous district at the same time.” The court below convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged in the instant case on the basis of G’s statement,

B. (1) However, the judgment of the court below is in line with the above determination.