The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Defendant AI’s 1,132 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), the farming house was completed in around 1967 on the ground, and around 200, the factory was constructed. In most adjacent to the instant land, there were sufficient grounds to determine that the instant land was not farmland at the time of the instant case, since a factory building was constructed on the ground.

Defendant

Since A was well aware of the current status of the land in this case, A was required to have L, a public official in charge, prepare a draft as described in the facts charged in this case, and there was no intention to have L perform an act without any obligation by abusing official authority.

In addition, since Defendant A worked as the G pages at the time of the instant case, the issue of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland falls under the authority and authority of Defendant A. Thus, even if Defendant A had L, a working-level employee, engage in a factual act assisting the execution of his duties, Defendant A illegally exercised the matters belonging to his authority in light of the background and purpose leading up to the instant case.

shall not be deemed to have caused L to do any non-obligatory act.

Nevertheless, since the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to farmland and the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights, which affected the conclusion

(2) Defendant B, while in office as a member of the RR City Council, introduced a civil petition to L and G Design, a public official in charge, and Defendant B, a public official in charge, for the purpose of aiding in solving a civil petition against G, and did not have the intent to have L perform an act not obligated to do so by abusing his official authority, and the lower court did not have publicly recruited Defendant A’s act of abuse of official authority.