Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the defendants recognized all of the crimes of this case and against the mistake, Defendant A was the first offender with no criminal power, and Defendant B did not have any record of punishment for the same crime.

However, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant A and Defendant B, the representative director of the corporation D, decided to acquire farmland and sell it to the general public by dividing it, and in fact, each of the Defendants conspired to obtain a false qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland in the name of each of the Defendants. The actual crime of this case was committed under the name of the Defendants and Co-Defendant C, as if the Defendants and Co-Defendant C purchased the farmland of this case purchased, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendants and the above C. In light of the motive, method, etc. of the crime, the crime is very poor in light of the motive, method, etc. of the crime, and the act of title trust and consignment of real estate is highly likely to be abused as a means of evading speculative tax evasion, as well as undermining the real estate transaction order, and the act of issuing false qualification for acquisition of farmland reaches the purport of the Farmland Act to promote the management stability of farmers through efficient use and management of farmland. It is highly necessary to punish the Defendants. In addition, considering the Defendants’ age, character, environment, motive, motive and consequence leading leading to commit the crime and circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendants' appeal is justified.