All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of excavation of graves by mistake of facts (as to the acquittal portion in the judgment of the court below), C and K, the Suwon District Court 201 order 5560 decided on the ground that the evidence submitted by C and D had no graves at the time of performing civil engineering works in the forest and field with the wife population F forest (hereinafter “the forest and field of this case”), and that C cannot be deemed to have excavated graves in the forest and field of this case, the Defendant’s testimony is false.

B) The instant grave (hereinafter “instant grave”) located in the instant forest and field shall be located in the net H(E’s five lines) graves (hereinafter “instant grave”).

(C) At the time of discovery, not around April 2010 when C and D performed the civil works, but around June 200 when C and D performed the civil works, it is reasonable to regard the Defendant as space from June 2009 to January 2010 when the Defendant engaged in the investigation of standing timber and the cutting of trees in order to obtain permission for conversion of forest land of this case. (C) As such, the Defendant knew that the instant grave had already been excavated before April 2010, and knew that C had already been appointed to D, who was not the principal, was in charge of the civil works of the instant forest. The Defendant testified that C had been present and testified as the other party as a witness in the relevant civil litigation, and testified that C and D have excavated and damaged a grave while conducting the civil works on April 2010, so perjury constitutes perjury. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, erred by misapprehending the facts affecting the judgment. (2) In so determining, the lower court’s judgment is unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), the guilty part of the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous because the defendant was investigated by an investigative agency for a long time, and thus the investigator was summoned at the time, and testimony was made at the time.