The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment defendant recognized the crime of this case and supported his family while engaging in the distribution business.

However, the Defendant changed the use of two Dongs installed on the land within the development restriction zone without permission to use as a logistics warehouse, extended a height of 1.5 meters. The Defendant extended the building by cutting the roof with two greenhouses, cutting off the steel tent, or using a light panel, and changed the form and quality of the land as a site by building concrete on the land category of 600 square meters in land. In order to prevent any disorderly spread of the city, to conserve the natural environment surrounding the city, etc., the Defendant changed the form and quality of the land as a site by putting a concrete on the land category of 600 square meters. The legislative purpose of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, which prohibits the alteration of the use of a building in violation of the purpose of the designation, in principle, and the Defendant’s criminal intent on March 30, 2015, taking into account the fact that the Defendant had been issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as the same crime on March 30, 2015.

The Defendant did not take any measures for reinstatement until ten months have passed since he/she was accused by the competent authority on December 2, 2016.

In full view of such circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., in this case where there is no change in the circumstances concerning the sentencing conditions in the court below compared to the original judgment, the punishment imposed by the court below in this case seems to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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 ordered as per Disposition.