The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine for negligence, that the defendant seems to have made considerable efforts to restore the original state, and that all of the crimes in this case are recognized, and that the mistake is repented.

However, the area of the land that has changed its form and quality without obtaining permission for the change of development activities or exceeding the permitted area is not small, and in particular, the Defendant has been punished several times in violation of the environmental laws and regulations, such as the Waste Management Act, the Forestry Act, the Water Quality and Water Quality Conservation Act, etc., in addition to the instant crime, and there is a need for the Defendant to put the light on lack of compliance awareness.

In full view of other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.