Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts is 4,282 square meters of F farmland in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant F farmland”).

A) The Defendant actually restored the farmland to its original state, and the Defendant prepared a business trip report after determining that the said farmland was restored to its original state in consideration of the characteristics of the damaged land restoration, and there was no intention or processing of affairs with respect to the writing and exercise of public electronic records, etc.

3) The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the following grounds: (a) considering the field photographs of 1,322 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, according to the field photographs of 1,322 square meters (hereinafter “O farmland in this case”; and (b) N purchased the above farmland for the purpose of construction of warehouse other than agricultural management, it seems that there is no dry field like the Defendant’s business trip report; and (c) in full view of the fact that N purchased the above farmland for the purpose of construction of warehouse, which is not agricultural management, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (as regards Defendant A) on the Defendant (as regards the suspended sentence of imprisonment for six months), is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination of misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant A, and the lower court comprehensively takes account of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning.