All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where the Defendants concluded a loan agreement with the Korea Asset Management Corporation with respect to the land D in Gunsan City, such a case where the Defendants did not obtain permission for temporary use of land for other purposes, or is not illegal even if they did not obtain permission.

Recognizing such recognition, there is no legitimate reason for such recognition, and there is no punishment.

(2) The land category E in the Gunsan City is the entire land category, but it has been left alone for several years without cultivating crops, and it cannot be deemed farmland, such as using it as the field site for trees damaged by pine wilt disease in the Gunsan City.

(3) In order to file an application for the temporary use of farmland for other purposes for the above land E, the owner of the above land must attach a written consent to the land use by the landowner, and there is no possibility of lawful act because it became the address of the old land as Japan and it is impossible or extremely difficult for the general public to become the owner.

(4) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby having convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the Defendants: KRW 3 million for each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport at the lower court’s judgment as to factual mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court, in detail, explained in the column of “determination of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion” and rejected the above assertion. Examining the judgment of the lower court in comparison with the records, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, as otherwise alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. Defendant A was subject to criminal punishment exceeding a fine for determining the unfair argument of sentencing.