Of the part concerning the accused case of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the crime of fraud and the second judgment shall be respectively stipulated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The gist of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal (with respect to the first judgment), the above judgment of the court below (with respect to the “crime of fraud as of March 11, 201,” which is the first instance judgment at the time of sale, is unreasonable, as it is too uneasible to a fine of five million won in preference to the “crime of fraud from November 8, 201 to January 2, 2012,” of Article 2 of the judgment of the court below.

B. The summary of the defendant's grounds for appeal (as to the second judgment of the court below), in the case of fraud in the second judgment, the defendant received KRW 287,970,00 from the victim H to change the form and quality of the forest owned by him or it was not changed due to the group civil petition of residents near the above forest and field, and there was no intention to acquire the above money by deceiving the above victim from the beginning, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the court below [the punishment of the court below 50,00 won, additional collection of 156,280,000 won for the crime No. 72 above] is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (the part of each crime in the judgment of the first instance and the second instance) and the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant are examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

First of all, where multiple acts falling under the name of the same crime or continuous acts are conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of the crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do14135, Mar. 29, 2012). The fraud in the judgment of the second instance and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act are permitted to change the form and quality of the victim H forest by solicitation of the public official under his/her jurisdiction.