The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant wastes of erroneous determination of facts are left away from the wall, and the neighbors are left on the roadside, and the Defendant does not have to leave the wall without permission.

(b) Sentencing (a fine of two million won is imposed);

2. Determination

A. In the trial process of the appellate court’s determination of mistake of facts, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and the first instance court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous.

Where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in full view of the statements made at the Defendant, C’s investigative agency, and the lower court’s court’s court’s court, and the Defendant

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. A review of the determination of the argument regarding the imposition of a heavy punishment, the circumstance that the defendant seems to have performed restoration to the original state by putting waste and recycled materials currently occupying and using the road. However, in full view of the defendant's punishment for the same kind of crime and other conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing of the court below is acceptable and the defendant asserts.