In light of the fact that the Defendants violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, etc., in the process of purchasing the forest of this case at a price higher than the market price of the O forest 28,484 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) from I, in the process of purchasing the forest of this case, in violation of the statutes, H ordinances and rules on the full-time settlement of affairs, and H recognized the appraised amount of the appraisal report with defect in the form as it is and had H purchase the forest of this case at a high price.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that they did not have the intention of breach of trust is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Although the instant forest land falls under franchising, the lower court, on the premise that the instant forest land does not fall under franchising, stated the “franchising” prosecutor, other than franchising land, as the “franchising” was written, but the instant forest land appears to fall under franchising errors, and thus corrected

On the other hand, the vertical length refers to the general road where a vehicle usually enters and a Uton is possible, and the vertical length means the road where it is difficult for a Uton to normally enter the vehicle.

(913 pages) The court below determined that there was no property damage to H who purchased the forest of this case at a price based on the appraisal report evaluated as a trial record. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

Considering the abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights, Defendant A’s prosecutor’s statement, etc., W may recognize the facts opposed to the Defendants’ instructions.

Furthermore, as W was aware that it is the H market by the legitimate approving authority under the internal regulations at the time of preparing and proposing a written official document regarding the payment guarantee in the process of purchasing the forest land of this case, the Defendants are not the legitimate approving authority.