All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are as follows: Defendant 4,010 square meters of H forest in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant forest”).

() Although the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of J andO directly from the seller without completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of himself or K, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant intended to be exempted from the imposition of taxes, or to obtain profits based on price fluctuation between other market values, or to avoid the statutory restrictions that regulate changes in rights such as ownership, etc., and the Defendant sold part of K’s shares at the request of J. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2. The lower court’s judgment on the charges of unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Fraud 2013 Go-Ma529, J believed that the Defendant had no experience in real estate transactions and purchased the forest of this case with the same school member, and consistently stated that in the process, the Defendant would be able to build a hotel on the land of this case and be able to install play facilities in the surrounding area. The Defendant obtained enormous profits in the process of resale of the forest of this case, and as long as it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s investigative agency and legal statement as it is, the Defendant could be fully convicted of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. On the other hand, the J’s statements are concrete and consistent, and the grounds for preparing a cash of KRW 30 million are financial transactions. The Defendant’s violation of the Act on Fraud and Attorney-at-Law No. 2013 [2] and the Act on Attorney-at-Law [20 million] are the following.