All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) M&D 4,021 square meters in total (in the case of a piece of land, it is designated as an environment improvement zone within the upper sphere protection zone) of 8 parcels, both F.

hereinafter referred to as “instant land”

3) As to the ground-based general steel structure No. 1, 9 neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”)

2) As to the building permit (hereinafter “instant building permit”)

In relation to the above construction permission, if the public official in charge of the permission of the administrative agency confirms the fact of Cho Man-do, the Defendants are deemed to have nine persons, including H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P (hereinafter “H, etc.”) who was the residents of the water supply protection area adjacent to the instant land or who resided in the water supply protection area for at least six months.

(2) Although it was easily known that an application for a building permit was filed under the name of an administrative agency, the instant building permit was granted in a timely manner without undergoing sufficient examination. Therefore, the instant building permit was due to insufficient examination by the administrative agency, and was not conducted by Defendant A’s deceptive scheme, and thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have committed obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means. (2) Punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one hundred and sixty months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. At the time of the instant building permit, Defendant B (1) mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) At the time of the instant building permit, the public official in charge of permission granted the building permit to the applicants (residents) meeting the requirements of the owner. Thus, even if A and C applied for the instant building permit by lending the name of resident, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent means in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means.

Even if such act constitutes a deceptive scheme, the instant building permit is due to the insufficient examination by the public official in charge, so it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means (legal scenarios). (b) Defendant B and Defendant A.