The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced the defendant (one month of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, who recognized the instant crime, runs against the Defendant.

The defendant is aged 81.

Prior to the instant case, the Defendant is an initial offender who had no record of criminal punishment.

On the other hand, the Defendant, without permission from the competent authorities, changed the use of two Dongs and two seedlings of seeds and seedlings cultivation facilities installed on the land within the development restriction zone without permission to use as a logistics warehouse, extended a total of 118.5 square meters to a prefabricated panel on the connecting passage, and changed the form and quality by building concrete on the floor of each of the above facilities and farmland equivalent to a total of 862.5 square meters. In order to prevent urban disorderly expansion, to conserve the natural environment surrounding the city, etc., the legislative purpose of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of the Development Restriction Zones where the use of buildings in violation of the purpose of designation is prohibited as a development restriction zone in principle and the purpose of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of the Development Restriction Zones where the Defendant changed the use of two warehouses and two Dongs of warehouses for the purpose of obtaining rent profits, and the rental profits that the Defendant seems to have accrued from that change the use of the warehouse for the purpose of obtaining rent profits, it is not easy that the

Since the Defendant was accused of the instant crime, the Defendant did not take any measures for restitution until now.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation and environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court in this case where there is no change in circumstances as to the sentencing conditions in the trial compared to the lower court, appears to have been made within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.