[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the above sentence shall be executed.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is a person who works for C as an auditor, and C is a corporation, and C is an owner of 2,713 square meters of land E-Gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and F forest, 1,074 square meters of forest land, G 1,203 square meters of forest land, and around October 28, 2015, when filing a construction report on the construction of a general steel structure retail store and a billiard building on the ground of the above forest from Taean-gun-gun, Taean-gun, to bring in a site creation project plan from 4,00 cubic meters to emb and fill the land and obtain permission for change of cultural properties, and Defendant A is a person who runs a construction business.

1. On September 2017, Defendant A, Defendant B, at the office of I Co., Ltd. located in the H2 floor in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and around September 2017, Defendant A, Defendant B, “C,” proposed that Defendant B would incur a lot of profits when collecting and selling high-quality sand within 2,713 square meters of forest E, F forest land, 1,074 square meters of forest land, G 1,203 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant land”). As such, Defendant A and Defendant B would collect and sell sand in approximately 8-10 square meters from the instant land, and paid KRW 60 million in return for the sale of sand, and offer C Co., Ltd. to have the construction work for site creation as stated in the first building report filed with Tae-Gun, and Defendant B knowingly knew that the first construction report was in violation of the terms and conditions accepted.

Accordingly, around September 2017, Defendant A sold sand from the instant land to J Co., Ltd. after cutting sand from the use of a dump truck, using approximately 456.90 cubic meters of dump truck.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conduct development activities without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, and conducted conversion of a mountainous district without obtaining permission, and made changes in the form and quality of land and forest that may affect the preservation of D, State-designated cultural properties.

2. The Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct is as described in paragraph (1).