The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, the Gyeonggi-si Jin-gun.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) In light of the fact that Defendants (1) mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the conviction portion in the original judgment), G purchased the J Forest in Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “J Forest”) for the purpose of gaining profit from the market price, the J Forest was merely explaining the development support around the above land based on newspapers or service reports at the time of introducing the J Forest, and the possibility of road expansion is merely simply simply simply simply a simple prospect or expectation for the possibility of road expansion, and the Defendants sold J Forest to other persons, such as AB, etc. at ordinary level 2.50,00 won, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendants’ solicitation constitutes deception in fraud or it was difficult to deem that there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud in fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Even if not, the lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the public prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion in the original judgment), the Defendants and Chuncheon-si E Forest (hereinafter “E Forest”), the statements of AA, and the fact-finding inquiry inquiry inquiry reply with respect to the SJE with the content that there is no plan to establish or transfer the E Forest, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even if the Defendants conspired in collusion to sell the E forest and sell the E forest as stated in this part of the charges, and by deceiving 215.9 million won in total as the purchase price.

(2) Even if there is an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s conviction on the guilty portion as indicated in the judgment of the lower court is too uneasible compared to the Defendants’ nature of the crime.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

(a) this part;