All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendants led to confessions and reflects by the Defendants, the Defendants did not commit a conclusive intentional act, the Defendants completed restoration to the original state, and the new trial is well managed by the Defendants, the Defendants did not have the same criminal history and did not have any record of having been sentenced, and the Defendants actively cooperate in the investigation, etc., the lower court’s sentence (the Defendant A: 2 years of suspended execution and community service 200 hours in the year of imprisonment, and the Defendant Incorporated Agricultural CompanyB: fine of KRW 10 million in the year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the damaged land area due to the public prosecutor’s act of Defendant A is very large, that Defendant A was depthed only the seedlings that Defendant A saw as part of the restoration to its original state, and that it is difficult to deem that the actual restoration was completed since the follow-up management was not properly performed, the circumstances leading to the instant crime, and that there is a need to punish the Defendant A to prevent recidivism, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is so fluent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, all appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are without merit, and all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.