The defendant shall be innocent.

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, C entered into an employment contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant did not falsely enter his affiliation into the online access system as if it were D employees, as stated in the facts charged in this case, and did not allow G to file an application for North Korea, as if it were D employees, and even if it was only D’s employees, and is not the representative director, it was not the subject of the instant crime, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and thereby did not err by misapprehending the legal principles,

B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) for the purpose of settling the construction cost of a newly constructed building in the GIC zone, the Defendant received personal information, pictures, etc. from C to the GIC for the purpose of having C enter the GIC; and (b) before C visit the GIC around July 2015; (c) considered that C returned from the GIC on July 13, 2015, the time when C returned from the GIC was on July 13, 2015 (the eight pages of the evidence record); (d) the date on which the Defendant filed an application for the North Korea, such as as written in the facts charged, appears to have been transferred not only on July 13, 2015, but also on the transfer.

The head of the company G submitted to F, the original business entity in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E 312, and the head of the above company G applied for access to the online access system and false entry of the affiliated agency as if C were D employees, and obtained approval from the Minister of Unification for visiting the GG from the Minister of Unification.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the following reasons: (a) the Corporation is not an employee employed by D; (b) the Corporation has not received benefits from D; (c) the Corporation has left Korea upon the Defendant’s request to settle the construction price; and (d) the Defendant has falsely prepared the standard labor contract for the daily workers employed in the Corporation in order to pretend C to be a D employee; and (c) obtained C’s approval by using C’s North