The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles.

1) With respect to the event of electronic records, such as false records, such as public electronic records, and false records, among the instant case No. 736, the lower court did not know that the ownership preservation registration was already completed with respect to the instant building, and that the Defendant did not directly participate in the application for the registration of ownership preservation on May 27, 2014 for the registration of ownership preservation on the first floor of the 127mm2 per Jin-si Do Da, the steel frame, the straw, the straw, the roof, the neighboring living facilities (general restaurants), the local materials center, and the 112.1m2m2 of the 1st floor of accommodation facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”). As stated in this part of the charges, the registration of ownership preservation was legitimate on May 27, 2014.

2) With respect to the above case’s interference with business, the Defendant is not memorying that he committed the crime.

3) As to the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act (Seoul High Court Decision 2015 750) by the lower court, the Defendant could remove trees below 6 cm in diameter without permission, as a result of the Defendant’s inquiry with the Jin-si Forest.

Since the guidance was received, only the work of cutting the trees in trust and cutting them.

4) As to the charge of assault among the cases of the lower judgment No. 2015 J. 903, the Defendant did not have committed an assault against the victim I.

5) Regarding the fraud of the lower judgment 2016 High Order 789, the Defendant did not have agreed to set up a right to collateral security on the land of JJ against the victim M, and had the intent and ability to return the lease deposit to the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a crime under Articles 736 subparag. 1 and 2 and 789 of the order of 2015 and the order of 2016: Imprisonment; a crime under Article 736 subparag. 3 of the order of 2015; a crime under Article 750 of the order of 750 of the order of 2015; a crime under Article 903 subparag. 1 and 2 of the order of 2015: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 years of suspension of execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.