The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A As to the first offense in the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (A) 1-A-related to the criminal facts as indicated in the lower judgment’s judgment, Defendant purchased the land indicated in paragraph 1-A-related to the criminal facts as indicated in the lower judgment, which had already been granted a factory construction permit from NN on March 31, 2011, in the name of L. Since the period for factory construction permit remains at the time, Defendant A-A-related to the criminal facts as indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant did not know that the period for deemed

In addition, the defendant was not aware of the diversion of mountainous districts and felling of standing timber because he was entrusted with civil engineering works, etc. on the land.

B) No. 1-B of the criminal facts stated in the holding of the court below is merely a contract for restoration works and civil engineering works on the land stated in Section 1-B of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below in L in the name of L, and S has made a contract for restoration works and civil engineering works to AO which is a subordinate business operator, and there is no omission of the defendant's order.

2) The punishment that the court below sentenced to the defendant unfairly (the punishment No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, the punishment No. 1-b, C and 2 in the holding): imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant C was guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes). However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant C of this part of the charges is erroneous.

2) Improper sentencing (for Defendant A), the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too unffortable and unfair.

2. We also examine Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to Article 1-1(a) and (b) of the Criminal facts as indicated in the

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant, at the time of the second prosecutor’s investigation on October 17, 201, determined that the Defendant was performing the construction work in relation to the conversion of mountainous districts into mountainous districts around April 201.