The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The defendant A is innocent. The defendant A is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal doctrine, and the selection of a subcontractor by Defendant I (hereinafter “I”) does not constitute an act within the general duties of the Defendant, who is a public official of the ordering authority, and the Defendant considered the purchase of pine B to the O, who is the head of I’s site site, and did not issue unlawful and unfair instructions, such as: (a) he did not intend to give a subcontract for pine trees to B, who did not have a landscaping construction license.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of obstruction of exercising the right of abuse of authority is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C1: (a) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant C entered into a subcontract for tree planting construction with the intent to perform the “G construction” and “H construction,” which was implemented by the F market price, and (b) was actually involved in the construction, and thus, Defendant B did not allow the said Defendants to perform construction by using Q’s trade name or construction business license; (c) but there was an error of misapprehension of the legal doctrine or misconception of the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million each), which is unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) Defendant A did not intentionally correct erroneous information entered in the F Viewing account or accounting, Defendant A knew that urban traffic and the competent officer should enter an electronic document “fixed” into an improper “fixed document,” and obtained approval with the consent of the public official, and the crime of forgery and enforcement, such as an electronic document, is established. However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or of legal principles.

2) The lower court’s judgment against Defendant A and B regarding the improper sentencing (as to Defendant A and B).