The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On April 30, 2014, G affixed a written consent to land use and affixed a seal on the road ledger to the effect that, in accordance with the matters regarding the authorization and permission of multi-family housing on Liquefied-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”), 138 square meters of land among the 153 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

In addition, in the lawsuit of dividing the co-ownership of the instant land with Defendant E’s husband and wife, G claimed that the instant land was owned by the sole ownership of 15 square meters prior to D in the Namyang-si divided from the instant land.

B. As above, G’s consent for land use: (a) affixed the land partition and affixed the road ledger with the seal affixed on the road ledger, thereby falling short of each of the changes in land classification as a whole implicitly and implicitly.

(c)

The preparation of an application for land alteration, which divides the instant land into 138 square meters and 15 square meters, is a natural act accompanying the consent to land use, since it is intended to specify the part to be used as a road.

The change of land category from “former” to “road” is consistent with the content of the road ledger signed and sealed by G to ensure that the current status is consistent with the public book.

(d)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although the preparation of the application for land alteration by the Defendant does not constitute “fac

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this point by determining that the Defendant cannot be deemed as having prepared each of the instant applications for land alteration with the authority to prepare from G.

B. Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the circumstances in the lower judgment, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is sufficiently acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.