The judgment below

The part of the defendant J against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

J shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of Defendant F (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant H 1) In fact, the AI forest land (hereinafter “the instant forest”) owned by the Defendant Gindo, etc., and has been actually used as a mountain for gathering the graves of the Defendant’s vessel located in the instant forest.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant's graves opened clearly became the defendant's ancestor and the defendant applied for and received compensation with the legitimate delegation of the above owner's right. However, the court below found the grave of this case as the owner's unknown grave and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

J The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

The Prosecutor’s (Defendant G, H, and J: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, with prison labor for three years, with prison labor for three years, with prison labor for two years, and with prison labor for two years) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant H’s assertion of mistake, the lower court fully recognizes the fact that the Defendant, as the Defendant had owned and managed the Defendant’s substitute grave, deceiving the Victim’s Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “LH Corporation”) to receive false compensation, as if it were actually owned and managed as the Defendant’s substitute grave.

① The forest land of this case was owned by the Defendant, who was the father, the son of the Defendant, and the father, the Defendant’s father, who was the Defendant, were succeeded to or sold in succession to, or sold to, the small father of the Defendant, and thereafter, the ownership was transferred on the ground of the acquisition of the land for public use by LH construction.

(2) The statement of the defendant.