All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ common assertion 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles : (a) compliance with the limited area provisions by obtaining permission to engage in development activities to construct accommodation facilities of not more than 660§³ for each divided land of this case by dividing the land of this case; (b) Defendant C did not obtain permission by deception or other unlawful means; (c) Defendant C did not know at all the fact that Defendant C, from the beginning, intended to obstruct two buildings in sequence with the land of this case; (b) Defendant C did not prepare design documents, etc.; (d) did not perform the work either preparing a project plan or acting as an agent for filing an application for permission as stated in the facts of the lower judgment; and

3) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to the acquittal portion), the fact that the Defendants obtained permission for conversion of mountainous district by false or other unlawful means, such as submitting a false business plan stating that they will conduct the intended business without the intent to conduct the intended business. As such, the Defendants may also be found guilty of violating the Management of Mountainous Districts Act among the facts charged. The lower court’s sentencing of unfair sentencing (as to the sentencing of the Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence of six months, Defendant B, and C: each fine of KRW 10,000,000, the Defendants are too unreasonable, and

2. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine constituted a case where the Defendants obtained permission by means of a deceptive scheme or other acts deemed unfair by social norms, even though it was impossible to obtain permission through normal procedures in this case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

Furthermore, the judgment of the court below and the trial court are examined.