All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) With respect to the alteration of official document and the uttering of altered official document, Defendant 1’s arbitrarily revised the proviso to Article 18 of the PP Business Management Guidelines (hereinafter “instant Guidelines”), the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to have altered the official document “report on the result of the Policy Council’s 108 Policy Council, including the Written Decision of the Policy Council and the said Decision.”

1. The amendment bill of the instant guideline is an uncertain document, and is unclear as to which public document the Defendant has altered.

② The Policy Deliberative Council is merely an advisory body that assists the decision-making of the F president, and the Policy Deliberative Council has not discussed specifically the proviso to Article 18 of the Amendment Bill of this case at the 108th Policy Deliberative Council.

(3) It cannot be deemed that the content of the amendment of the instant guidelines is reflected in the official text of the Policy Deliberative Council’s report on the results of the 108th Policy Deliberative Council, including the written resolution of the Policy Deliberative Council and the said proposal.

④ The Defendant did not directly alter the above official document itself.

⑤ The act of approval by the defendant in the official document requested for issuance is based on the authority of the defendant who is the discretionary decision-taking authority.

6. The Defendant revised the guidelines to comply with the will of the Speaker, who is the issuing authority of the instant guidelines.

B) As to the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, the Defendant did not commit any act that causes mistake, perception, and site to the F Director and the F regulatory reform legal officer. In particular, the F Director did not know that the instant guidelines were amended differently from his/her own will, and there was no intention to interfere with the F Director and the F Director’s performance of official duties by the regulatory reform legal officer, and there was no intention to interfere therewith. C) As to the Defendant’s motive for the revision of the instant guidelines, the core goal of the initial revision of the instant guidelines is to improve the quality of Q goods and promote competition among suppliers.