The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) determined that the Defendant did not have any obligation to deliver the part of the instant vinyl land among the instant vinyl land as related persons under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), and that with respect to the part of the instant vinyl land, the Defendant did not receive any compensation for the said part of the instant vinyl land under the circumstances where the Defendant did not transfer the said portion of the land located at the same time, and thus, constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the instant facts charged against the Defendant constitutes a case where the Defendant does not constitute a crime under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the crime of this case is established if the land or goods are not transferred or transferred by the commencement date of expropriation, and the defendant did not deliver each of the above land without lawful objection procedures. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio determination prosecutor, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that “the land located in Changwon-si Mungpo-si C and D” among the facts charged in the instant case is “1,332 m2 m2 in Changwon-si, Changwon-si” and “D 1,160 m22 m2 in Changwon-si, Changwon-si (1,167 m2 before division). Since this Court permitted this, the judgment below was no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. The court below duly adopted and examined the facts of recognition.