Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years, respectively.

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles explained that L corporation and K would open temporary roads on the basis of the road display portion of the temporary partition road provided by Defendant C, and that they will open temporary roads temporarily to the victims. Defendant A did not intend to deceive victims or to take money from victims, on the ground that the land use planning confirmation source, etc. revealed the difference between the fact and management area as a preserved mountainous district and the price of preserved mountainous district.

In particular, there is no fact that the victim BH, BI, and K had been conspired with the defendant C, AJ against those who are not aware of the defendant A.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of all the charges of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Dob. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. Each punishment sentenced by Defendant C (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the Defendants’ grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

As the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the Defendants, the Defendants filed an appeal against the above two rulings, and the court of second instance decided to hold concurrent hearings. Since the crimes of the court of first and second instance against the Defendants are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first and second instance cannot be maintained as they are.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant A's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and is below.