D. Defendant A and C’s imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, for six months, for Defendant B’s fine of 5,00,000 won, and for Defendant E.

On December 23, 2015, Defendant D was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act at the Jeju District Court on December 23, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2016.

Criminal facts

Defendant

D As the representative of Defendant E Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: K Co., Ltd.), Defendant E Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest”) was converted into the mountainous district without obtaining permission from the competent authorities for conversion of mountainous district from Posman on July 2015, 2015.

9. On December 2015, when the Jeju District Court was prosecuted as a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and was tried, Defendant B, the representative of Defendant FF Co., Ltd., agreed to receive construction works for restoration of the original state equivalent to KRW 122,50,000 for the forest of this case from Defendant B, who was the captain of Defendant F Co., Ltd., for the first time, and Defendant B was actually performing construction works for restoration of the original state equivalent to the above construction cost. However, Defendant B was able to prepare and submit to the court the false sentencing data which pretended to have been executed for restoration of the original state equivalent to approximately KRW 75,00,000,000 for the said construction cost.

1. On December 24, 2015, Defendant D asked to the effect that “After paying the restoration cost equivalent to approximately KRW 75 million on December 2015, 2015 to the forest land of this case at the Jeju correctional room meeting room located in Jeju city, Defendant D, the branch of Defendant D, “after receiving the payment from F Co., Ltd., an electronic tax invoice, which unfilledd the construction cost, was issued by F Co., Ltd., and submitted it to the court via an attorney.”

Accordingly, the above C and A accepted the foregoing, and around January 6, 2016, through a defense counsel who is not aware of the fact that the FF corporation had completed the construction work with respect to the forest of this case around December 24, 2015, as follows: (a) as if the FF corporation performed the construction work for restoration from the original state around December 24, 2015, a tax invoice stating false facts is issued from B.