2. Determination

A. Examining the misapprehension of the legal principle in light of the records in this case, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant made a false report to record at least the fact of establishment of a company.

Therefore, the court below's decision of not guilty on this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Do9293 Decided February 27, 2020, and Supreme Court Decision 2019Do7729 Decided March 26, 2020, respectively). The Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is rejected.

B. We examine both the point of unfair sentencing and the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment.

In addition, in full view of all the circumstances indicated in the arguments and records of the instant crime, including the details and contents of the instant crime, the criminal records of the Defendant (in particular, the criminal committed during the period of repeated crime and the concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the final judgment rendered by the lower court), the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court for the period of eight months is too weak or unreasonable, and that the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Each party's assertion of unfair sentencing is also concerned.