The judgment below

The part of the defendant A and B against the defendant corporation is reversed.

Defendant

A and B Co., Ltd. shall be fined 3.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) mistake of facts and Defendant A’s unreasonable sentencing are the case’s land in South-gu G at port (hereinafter “instant land”).

A) There was no illegal banking. Defendant A was merely shot off the soil from the road construction work near the instant land and the remaining soil from the graveyard located on the instant land within 50cm. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged against Defendant A, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Even if the facts charged against Defendant A are recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the punishment (fine 10 million won) imposed on Defendant A by the lower court is too unreasonable. 2) In so doing, Defendant A was punished on January 11, 2010 as the facts charged that Defendant A changed the form and quality of the instant land by raising the maximum height of the instant land at 1m.

(Seoul District Court Decision 2012No912 Decided August 30, 2012, and the Defendant appealed but the said judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that the facts charged against Defendant A and the facts constituting the crime of the final and conclusive judgment were related to a single comprehensive offense, and thus res judicata effect of the said final and conclusive judgment extends to the above facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced to Defendant A.

Public prosecution against the defendant A by a prosecutor is a case where the prosecution significantly deviates from the discretion of prosecution, thereby abusing the power of prosecution.

Therefore, the defendant A should be sentenced to a judgment dismissing public prosecution.

B. Defendant B’s assertion (in fact-finding and inappropriate sentencing) by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) did not illegally fill the instant land, and even if such fact is acknowledged, Defendant A’s act is irrelevant to Defendant B.

Nevertheless, the facts charged against Defendant B are found guilty.