The Defendant submitted a false inventory of property in a manner that is not recorded in the above inventory, even if he/she is the owner of the pertinent land D (hereinafter “instant land”).

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant land was owned by the Defendant at the time of submitting a list of property with the land expropriated in Sacheon-si, and that the ownership was the Defendant, or that the owner of the said land was the Defendant.

According to the records, on September 3, 1994, Sacheon-si incorporated the land of this case into a road and proceeded with the compensation procedure by incorporating it into a road according to the road confirmation and paving work on September 3, 1994. The defendant filed a claim for land price against Sacheon-si on September 3, 1994 and received all the land price from Sacheon-si on September 5, 1994; the defendant filed a claim for the above land price; the defendant also prepared all relevant documents, such as a sales contract, when he filed the claim for the above land price; however, he did not complete the registration procedure for ownership transfer due to any administrative error or omission; and the fact that the ownership transfer procedure is in progress in the name of Sa

If the facts are the same, it appears that the Defendant, as a matter of course, anticipated that the name of the owner of the instant land would have been changed from the Defendant to the private view at the time of receiving compensation at the time. Accordingly, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant knew that the instant land was in the name of the Defendant at the time of submitting the inventory.

Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant submitted a false list of property.

3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case are without proof of facts constituting a crime.