All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants to the punishment (an administrative fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant A is the representative director of the defendant corporation B (hereinafter "the defendant corporation"). The defendant corporation legitimately occupied and used the land within the river area with the permission of the competent administrative agency and lost the right to occupy and use the land due to the cancellation of the disposition of the permission of the competent administrative agency to occupy and use the land, which led to the crime of this case. There are some extenuating circumstances.

Defendant

A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Aggregate Extraction Act at the Jung-gu District Court on April 11, 2016, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on January 11, 2017. Since the instant crime is in a concurrent relationship with a crime of violation of the Act on the Extraction of Aggregate, which became final and conclusive, Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of this case is in a concurrent relationship with a crime of violation of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be determined in consideration of equity with a case where a judgment

On the other hand, the Defendants occupied and used land within the river area without permission of the competent authority for about three years, but failed to comply with the original restoration order of the river management agency, and the quality of each of the crimes of this case is not somewhat weak.

Until the trial of the party, the restoration of the above occupation and use portion has not been made.

The lower court appears to have determined the sentence against the Defendants in full view of the above circumstances, and there is no change in the special sentencing conditions after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, including Defendant A’s age, sex, occupation and environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too unreasonable for the lower court to impose the sentence on the Defendants.

We cannot accept the defendants' unfair arguments in sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.