We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant

A. In 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant L Co., Ltd. is punished by a fine of three million won.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: the imprisonment of June and the suspended sentence of two years for Defendant A; the fine of three million won for Defendant L L, and the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of Defendant A and the suspended sentence of two years) that the lower court pronounced is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the prosecutor's judgment as to the grounds for appeal, the court of original judgment, Nos. 1 and 2 sentenced the defendant A to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution, six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution, and two years of suspended execution with prison labor for the latter, and two years of suspended execution with prison labor for the latter. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the above two appeals, and the court of original judgment decided to hold concurrent trials. Since the crimes of the court of original judgment against the defendant A are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

B. 1) As to the violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act of the first instance judgment against the Defendants, the Defendants’ defense counsel changed the name of the Defendants L Co., Ltd. (B Co., Ltd.) to L Co., Ltd. on October 21, 2013;

hereinafter referred to as “stock company L”

The National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the “National Land Planning Act”) provides that the collection of soil and stones by Defendant A, who is an operator of an urban planning facility project, is subject to designation of the implementor and authorization of an implementation plan.

Since it falls under the proviso of Article 56 (1), Defendants do not need to obtain permission for development activities for collection of earth and rocks, and Article 56 (2) of the National Land Planning Act changes matters permitted for development activities under paragraph (1).