The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable as to the summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The judgment of the defendant recognized each of the crimes in this case and reflected, and the defendant has restored the original state to the land or illegally constructed buildings whose form and quality have been changed.

However, the crime of this case requires strict punishment in violation of each legislative purpose of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones and the Act on Special Measures for the Maintenance, Use, Management, and Preservation of Small Rivers to prevent urban disorder and to conserve the natural environment surrounding the city by prescribing matters necessary for the ownership, use, conservation, etc. of farmland to be efficiently utilized and managed, and by restricting activities in a development restriction zone, etc., and to improve the living environment by preventing disasters. The area of the land used exclusively for the use of the farmland and the land, etc. located in a small river zone, the form and quality of which have been modified without permission, is significant.

In addition, the lower court’s sentencing is determined to be appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too unreasonable, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively takes account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the previous theory.

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

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