A. In relation to the fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, electronic records, etc., and the use of false, false, false, and false, electronic records, etc., the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the forest of this case (hereinafter “the ownership of this case”) with the comprehensive delegation from the ordinary general meeting of shareholders on January 9, 2016 on the sale of the forest of this case (hereinafter “the forest of this case”). Thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though this constitutes a valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of facts, the crime of re-entry in an electronic record, etc., as provided by Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act, is established by having a public official make a false report and make a false report to record false facts inconsistent with the substance of an electronic record. In this case, “ false report” refers to a report to the fact contrary to the truth. “False statement” refers to stating that there exists any fact that does not go against objective truth or does not exist any fact that exists. If there is any defect that falls under invalidation even if there is no or external existence of any matter recorded in the public electronic record, etc., the statement constitutes a false statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14038, Dec. 13, 2012). The court below and the trial court duly adopted the evidence duly examined at the ordinary meeting on January 9, 2016; i.e.,, the defendant’s first statement to sell the forest in this case at the ordinary meeting of the prosecution and the defendant’s resolution to sell the forest in this case.