All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the occupational embezzlement. ① The market value of the dredging soil as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment is approximately 61,835 cubic meters (hereinafter “the dredging soil”).

(iii)"Stop" means reclaiming, from the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office, for a private soil treatment (upup for a public project and remodeling project for farmland after transporting to the private land).

hereinafter the same shall apply.

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the ground that: (a) Defendant A, B, and Q arbitrarily released the dredging soil of this case that P and Q had become aware of the fact that they were released from the dredging soil of this case; and (b) Defendant A, B, not sold the dredging soil of this case to P and Q on several occasions; and (c) Defendant A, B entrusted the management of sand of this case instead of selling the dredging soil of this case; and (d) Defendant A, B entrusted the management of sand of this case to P and Q; and (e) was merely a deposit for restoration, not a purchase price of KRW 20,000,00, not a purchase price, and thus, Defendant A and Q.

B. Defendant C1) was unaware of the fact that the dredging soil of this case is being released out of the outside by deceptive means, and Defendant C was ordered to take measures for restoration to the original state after becoming aware of such fact. Since it is difficult to view that Defendant C had given strict proof as to the obstruction of the legitimate performance of official duties by deceptive means, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the lower court sentenced to unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

C. The prosecutor’s occupational embezzlement against Defendant C.