All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) and the misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part not guilty and intimidation among the frauds 2014, 2451, 2015, 619, 2015, hereinafter referred to as “the instant farmland”), the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant was aware of the possibility of permitting the extraction of aggregate from the J, Gun, and 8 lots (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) within several months and could obtain a large benefit by obtaining permission for extraction of aggregate, and that the Defendant was able to obtain a false statement to the victim C, G, E, D, and F, and that he acquired money from the said victims, and that he threatened the victim G.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the fraud of KRW 20 million in loan toG) Defendant received KRW 20 million from G on the pretext of partial repayment of KRW 100 million in loan to G.

G It is not a false statement to borrow KRW 20 million.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The Prosecutor’s addition of the ancillary charge (the part of acquittal in the fraud No. 2014 second order 2451, the part of acquittal in the fraud) brought an application for changes in the indictment with respect to this part of the conjunctive charge as described in the following paragraph, while maintaining the acquittal portion in the fraudulent charge No. 2451 second order 2014 second order 201 second order 201 second order 201 second order 201 second order 201 second order 201 second order 201 second order

However, the aforementioned primary facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged (the fact of intimidation No. 2451, 2014, 2015, 619, 2015, 619) of the prosecutor’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the guilty portion of the lower judgment, and the error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the guilty portion of the Defendant (the fact of fraud corresponding to KRW 20 million againstG), and the unfair argument of sentencing as to the guilty portion of the lower judgment is still subject to the judgment of the lower court, and thus, the prosecutor and the Defendant.