The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning for sentencing, imposed the above sentence on the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the circumstance favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial on the grounds that the Defendant led to a confession and reflect on the crime; (b) the circumstance favorable to sentencing is sufficiently considered in the lower court’s determination of the sentence; (c) the Defendant’s construction of a temporary building without permission on farmland in a development restriction zone over a long period of time; (d) the nature of the offense, such as operating a maintenance facility to repair heavy vehicles while installing a temporary building without permission on the land in the development restriction zone; (e) despite having received a corrective order from the competent authority over several times, the Defendant continued the violation despite having received a corrective order from the competent authority over several times; and (e) the lower court, from around