All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) 1,132 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on the ground of Defendant A’s 1,132 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), the farming house was completed around 1967, and the factory was newly constructed around 200. In most of the instant land around the instant land, there were sufficient grounds to determine that the instant land at the time of the instant case was not farmland.

B) Since Defendant A was well aware of the current status of the land in this case, Defendant A had L, a public official in charge, prepare a draft as described in the facts charged in this case, and there was no intention to have L perform an act without any obligation by abusing official authority. C) Furthermore, Defendant A served as G pages at the time of the instant case, the issue of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is a matter belonging to the Defendant A’s official authority and authority. Although Defendant A had L, a public official in charge, engage in an act of assisting the execution of his duties, Defendant A illegally exercised matters belonging to his official authority in light of the developments and purpose leading up to the instant case.

shall not be deemed to have caused L to do any non-obligatory act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of abusing authority and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2 Defendant B, while in office as a member of the RR City Council, introduced a civil petition to L and G Design, a public official in charge, and Defendant B, a public official in charge, for the purpose of aiding in solving a civil petition against G, and there was no intention to have L perform a non-obligatory act by abusing Defendant A’s official authority. While there was no intention to have L perform a non-obligatory act, the lower court did not have recruited Defendant A’s abuse of official authority.