The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charge, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the fact that the defendant against the victim C did not notify the victim C of such fact and that the defendant would transfer the right to the K-type to the Z around July 2009, before entering into the contract for the supply of the ginseng of this case with C, the defendant could be deemed to have taken over only 40% of the right to collect the sea ginseng in order to avoid the prohibition of lease under the Fisheries Act. However, since this is an obvious illegal act, it is difficult to view that the defendant has the right to dispose of the sea ginseng taken from the actualJ. The defendant also recognized that he was aware of the problem of the designation of the coordinates at the time of taking over the right to the K-type from M around 208.

In light of the fact that the Defendant provided the victim D with 20 tons of sea water between one year and six months, but only supplied 3 tons of sea water to the victim D, the Defendant did not actually use it in returning advance payment of the former contractor (C) even though he received money from the victim D, and the Defendant received KRW 150 million from the victim D and received KRW 200 million in the same way as the victim F and E, and thus, the Defendant was delivered KRW 200 million in the same way as the amount of sea water supply contract deposit from the victim F and E, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the crime, but acquitted the Defendant of mistake of facts.

On July 1, 2010, the Defendant provided that the victim F and E will supply the full amount of sea ginseng going to the victim F and E for the next three years in the Q Q farming.