The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of two years and four months and fine of 30,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A 1 did not instruct Defendant B to forge and use a permit for an extension of the first time period for collecting earth and rocks of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”).

However, the lower court convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, and so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (two years of imprisonment, fine of thirty million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C: The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a year of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 50 million) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) On May 2013, Defendant A and B’s use of a forged official document constitutes a crime of forging an official document if: (a) Defendant A and B conspired with each other to take the “private document” of the permit for gathering earth and stones from Defendant A and B (N) (hereinafter “N”) into “tin” constitutes a separate document with new probative value; and (b) even if the non-written document was used, it constitutes a crime of forging an official document if the general public made an official document acceptable to the general public.

However, the lower court rendered not guilty of this part of the facts charged, so it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) In light of the fact that Defendant B, in violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, was in charge of blasting of rocks, the most important work related to collecting earth and stone without permission, and that M’s permission for gathering earth and stone was cut to AE, Defendant B was also involved in Defendant B’s act in violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act on September 2012.

It is reasonable to view it.

However, since the court below rendered not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence of each court below against Defendant A and B (the imprisonment of two years for Defendant A and the fine of thirty million won for Defendant A).