The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The fact that the defendant's judgment on the grounds for appeal of this case is contrary to the recognition of the crime of this case, the fact that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the fact that the damaged mountainous district is deemed to have been restored to its original state is considered in favor of the defendant.

However, in light of the size of the mountainous district, the form and quality of which have been altered, and the degree of the change in the form and quality of the mountainous district, which has been altered by the Defendant’s arbitrary conversion of the mountainous district without the permission of the competent authority, the crime of this case is not less than the nature of the crime. In light of the above favorable circumstances, the lower court appears to have sentenced to a fine less than the summary order in consideration of the above favorable circumstances, and there are no new circumstances to mitigate the fine, and considering various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that

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

However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the phrase “1. In the case of detention in the workhouse” under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is apparent that the phrase “Article 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act” is a clerical error under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act, and thus, it is apparent that it is a clerical error under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thus, the ex officio correction

.