The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not forge the written permission under the name of the head of the Jeonnam-do District Education Office of Education, and did not let F transmit the forged permission by facsimile to the D Middle Schools and I’s M agency operated, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and there was an error of law by mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is a public official who works for the office of education in charge of managing Jeonnam-do Office of Education from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 and has been in charge of granting permission for long-term loans of school juristic persons.

On May 29, 2009, the Defendant applied for a long-term loan to obtain a loan from the Do Teaching Institutes affiliated with the Do Teaching Institutes for construction of a dormitory from the Private School Promotion Foundation. On May 29, 2009, the Defendant, after undergoing its own deliberation committee, proposed a permit from 136 million won to limit the loan limit to the repayment funds to the E Traditional Food Contribution Fund. The Defendant sent it to the Management Division G, the head of the District Education Office, the head of the District Education Office, and the H with the approval of the Defendant.

Accordingly, K, the president I, the principal of D private teaching institute J, and the principal of D secondary school administration office, intends to obtain a loan from the Private School Promotion Foundation with the above permission, but the Private School Promotion Foundation refuses to grant a loan on the ground that it is not appropriate to make a contribution only as a financial resource for repayment, and that it is able to provide a school foundation's basic property for profit-making purposes as a security, and the former BB Office of Education refuses to grant a loan on the ground that it is able to implement a loan by finding the above circumstances to the Defendant, who is a person in charge of the business, after finding the former BB Office of Education, talks about the above circumstances, and then “the repayment will be responsible for our country, and how it does not harm the Office of Education.”