2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance in the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendants are highly likely to make and use a false official document without complying with the relevant provisions as public officials, and thus, it is obvious that the Defendants prepared and used it is erroneous

The Defendants prepared and exercised a false official document on nine occasions for a period of about nine months.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants are against each other by recognizing all of the crimes of this case.

At the time of the instant case, as a large-scale pest control work for pine trees is urgent, most forest managers in Jeju-do constitute or belong to the forest management unit in Jeju-do, making it difficult for the Defendants to employ and manage the forest group individually.

In addition, the Defendants deemed that they had advantages in its efficiency, economic feasibility, etc. by concluding a contract with a professional forest business entity and doing large-scale pest control work, and as a result, they suffered damage rather than individually employing a private person.

It is difficult to conclude it.

In light of the circumstances leading to the Defendants to commit each of the instant crimes, it seems that the Defendants did not have much awareness of illegality at the time of the instant case.

Defendant

A and B have no record of crime before each of the crimes in this case, and Defendant C has no record of crime except for those sentenced to a fine once.