The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (7 million won in penalty) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. However, there are extenuating circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake, and that the Defendant removed his reputation, and that the Defendant restored to his original state.

However, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant operating a restaurant without obtaining permission from the development restriction zone for profit-making purposes, and the Defendant, without permission, installed a tent, flat, or bridge, etc. in the state-owned river area, thereby promoting his own profit-making by installing a flat, etc., and the Defendant’s quality of the crime is not less than 960 square meters since the area where the Defendant installed a flat, etc. is not

In addition, on July 2015, around August 10, 2015, the Defendant was found to have committed an act of burning concrete on the river side at the same place as the instant case, and on January 8, 2016, the Defendant was found to have been found to have continued to commit the instant crime on July 28, 2016, taking into account the fact that “the Defendant completed the restoration of the area where the Defendant occupied and used without permission,” which was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in April, 2016, which became final and conclusive on May 28, 2016 and was still in the period of suspension of execution, and it was discovered on June 30, 2016 and returned back to the original state, and continued to commit the instant crime on July 28, 2016, and continued to commit the instant crime. Therefore, there is a high risk of criticism.

Taking account of the various circumstances, including the above circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unfair.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is re-written after pleadings.