Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. A. On April 1, 2005, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim D to purchase four parcels of land E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “this case’s land”) from the victim D on the following grounds: (a) the victim was promoting the implementation of the sale and purchase contract with the land transaction permission by obtaining the land transaction permission as it is “forest” which is the original use of the original land; (b) the Defendant, upon receiving an application for the land transaction permission by changing the original land into the original use of the original land; (c) on November 6, 2008, at the J Office located in J Office in the 401, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the Defendant finally entered into a land transaction contract with the victim D’s intent that the application for the land transaction permission cannot be received by changing the use of the land into a certified judicial scrivener for construction in the J Office located in the Subdivision-si, Sungnam-si, and prepared a land transaction contract under the name of the victim and D with the content of the application for the land transaction permission.

The Defendant used the file of a written application for permission for a land transaction contract on the same day and on the same day by a computer, and “Buyer A, seller D, L, and land-related matters E, F, G, H, and date of application, November 2008, buyer A, seller D, and L.”