A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles, the Defendant conducted an appraisal on the construction cost of the telecom building as indicated in the judgment below under the assistance of P, Q and AE, which is an expert witness for appraisal, and examined the draft appraisal report prepared by the appraiser, and finally signed and sealed the report and submitted it to the court. However, the court below found the Defendant to have conducted a false appraisal under the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles on false appraisal crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (a year and June, an additional collection of KRW 19,300,000, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court denied this part of the facts charged while asserting the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and determined that the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in its holding.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court on the various circumstances stated in the lower judgment, on which the lower court found the Defendant guilty, i.e., the Defendant had “O. (Defendant)” on the grounds that the Defendant had made a false appraisal at an investigative agency.

P. At this time, appraisal was transferred to P.

The “low-income company” does not have human and physical facilities to the extent that the court conducts the appraisal.

In February 2, 2015, the president of the Korean company's O of the case of appraisal of the court shall be transferred to P, and the case of appraisal has been transferred to P, at the time of the appointment of an appraiser from the branch branch of the Changwon District Court.

“The Defendant stated as “ and the relationship between P and Q.”