A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On October 2016, the Defendant was the owner of Gyeonggi-gu C, D, and E Forest (hereinafter “the instant forest”). On October 19, 2016, the instant forest was set up four nearest lower right (a total of KRW 537,00,000) in the instant forest. On November 19, 2015, the Yangyang-gun Forestry Cooperatives, which was a neighboring mortgagee, voluntarily filed a request for auction on or around November 19, 2015, was undergoing the auction procedure for the instant forest.

On October 2016, 2016, the Defendant offered the instant forest land to the victim G as a 500,000 won per square day by introducing F to the lower lower-class party of the instant forest land, but was rejected on the ground that the instant forest land was a blind site not adjacent to the road and a grave was frequently located.

On October 25, 2016, the Defendant stated to the effect that the date of sale of the voluntary auction procedure by the Yangyang-gun forestry cooperative was D, the victim G’s office located in the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gun H, that “The Defendant shall transfer all graves buried in the land of C, D, E (part 100 square meters), and prepare a written consent for the use of land access to the land of J and E adjacent father I to the extent that it can carry out authorization and permission for the construction of the road, and then divide E land, so that E would be purchased at KRW 60,000 per square year.”

However, in fact, the Defendant received the land price from the victim G to withdraw the voluntary auction procedure of the Yangyang-gun Forestry Cooperatives, scheduled as of October 26, 2016, and only stated that the facts charged in the facts charged in the facts charged in the J owned by the Defendant’s father in order to establish an access road essential for the development of the forest of this case, “the Defendant did not have any intent and ability to prepare even a written consent to the use of land in the E forest.” However, regarding E forest land, the Defendant prepared a written consent to the use of land in around November 2016 and delivered it to K (the person delegated by the Victim G). As such, the Defendant should be found not guilty, but as long as the remaining parts in the relation of the crime are found guilty, the judgment of innocence is not separately made in the text.