The 39 days of detention days before the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of forging private documents and the uttering of each falsified document, and sentenced the Defendant to a punishment of one year by recognizing the Defendant guilty of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means. Since only the Defendant filed an appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing regarding the guilty part of the lower judgment, the acquitted part of the lower judgment was separated and determined, and therefore, the scope of

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

The defendant applied for issuance of visa or foreigner registration in the name of the head of Kim○-○ or the foreigner registration application filed in the name of the head of Kim○-○ by applying for foreigner registration, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have used fraudulent means or intentionally committed such act. Even if the method of deceptive scheme is a method of domestic affairs, issuing visa and foreigner registration certificate is due to insufficient examination by the public official in charge, so the defendant is not responsible for obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the court below erred by misconceptioning the facts and finding guilty.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact

(1) In granting authorization or permission in accordance with the filing of an application, the administrative agency examines and determines whether to grant authorization or permission on the premise that the grounds for the filing of the application are inconsistent with the facts. Thus, if the administrative agency did not sufficiently confirm the facts and where the applicant believed that the grounds for the filing of a false application or false supporting materials are somewhat unjustifiable, it is due to insufficient examination by the administrative agency, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means. However, in cases where the applicant asserted false grounds for the filing of an application to the administrative agency and submitted false supporting materials to the administrative agency, the permitting agency has sufficiently examined the existence of the requirements for authorization or permission in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, but failed to discover that the grounds for the filing of the application and the false supporting materials are false, which caused fraudulent acts by the applicant, and thus, the crime of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do364, Sept. 26, 200).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant entered the Republic of Korea on October 200, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment on May 28, 2004 due to the charge of forging official documents, etc., on or around May 7, 2004, and the defendant was forced to leave the country on May 28, 2004, and thereafter, the defendant was issued a foreigner registration certificate under the name of the defendant's authority through Bracker's name through Bracker's office without undergoing the normal procedure at the port of China, which changed the date of birth to " October 10, 1961," and submitted the head office of the Republic of Korea to the Secretary of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea to obtain a visa issued on May 20, 2005, and submitted the visa registration certificate under the name of the defendant to the Seoul Immigration Office on May 21, 2005, and submitted the visa issued under the name of the defendant's authority to issue the foreigner registration certificate under the above.

(3) Therefore, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability for the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

The defendant, upon compulsory departure from the Republic of Korea, entered the Republic of Korea after obtaining a visa and a foreign registration certificate by obtaining a visa and a foreign registration certificate by obtaining the name changed through Broker’s name to re-entry the Republic of Korea. Such criminal act by the defendant is a crime significantly disturbing the entry and departure order of the Republic of Korea, and the defendant has been convicted two times as a criminal act of the same kind. Considering such various circumstances as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, method of criminal conduct, and circumstance of the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be proper and too

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and part of the detention days in the appellate court prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the sentence of the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition (However, among the criminal facts recorded in the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the "application for the issuance of the heading and visa who is issued without an ordinary opening procedure" is a clerical error of "the heading unit and visa issuance which are issued without an ordinary opening procedure upon the application for the issuance of visa", and therefore, it is obvious that the ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.

Judges Cho Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)