All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, G’s consent to land use and road designation consent with respect to “D” as stated in the facts charged, and G’s Dong C succeeded to the consent to land use and road designation obligation with respect to “D” as stated in the facts charged. As such, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have exercised his/her consent to land use and written consent to road designation as stated in the facts charged, or given his/her consent thereto. Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged with the forgery of private documents, the uttering of a falsified document, and the uttering of a falsified document, was erroneous in the misconception of facts. 2) The judgment of the first instance court against the Defendant of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. The first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto and ex post facto determination, in the absence of a new objective reason that could affect the formation of evidence in the trial process.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court. The court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion while explaining in detail the grounds for the judgment on the “judgment on the principal claim,” and the court of the first instance convicted the Defendant of the forgery of private documents, the uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the charge of perjury.

The court of first instance and the court of first instance shall make the above decisions.