The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: The court below found Defendant A guilty on the basis of the confession of Defendant A, but the confession is not consistent with the substantive truth.

In other words, Defendant A did not have promised to allow the victim P and Q (hereinafter “P”) to operate the outdoor golf range, and Defendant A did not have any circumstance that Defendant A was unable to lease or purchase the surrounding land from the Cultural Heritage Administration because it was not a zone registered as N, on the ground that: (a) the alteration of the use of the “H building” on the first floor above the ground level (hereinafter “H building”) constructed on the 68,466 square meters of G forest in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu and Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and (b) the site of the instant H building owned by the Foundation J (hereinafter “J”); (c) the site of the instant H building (hereinafter “the instant site”); and (d) K (hereinafter “the surrounding land”) was not a zone registered as N.; and (e) Defendant A was not a situation in which the Cultural Heritage Administration

Therefore, although the criminal intent of Defendant A’s deception or fraud cannot be recognized, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Defendant B 1’s assertion of mistake of facts: (a) deemed that P, etc. is able to operate the outdoor golf range business; (b) Defendant A’s active deception, which was intended to bring about the instant H building to his own business plan and intended to gain profits therefrom; and (c) Defendant B was excluded from the process.

② Although Defendant B stated that the possibility of purchasing the site of this case, possibility of changing the purpose of use of the H building of this case, etc. was expressed by Defendant B, it was not true.

③ The lower court determined that the Defendants conspired to induce P, etc. on the grounds of recognizing that the Defendants had a same interest in P, etc. due to the fact that the Defendants were in a delegated relationship, but the reasoning is inconsistent.

(4) P.