The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted in the gist of the grounds of appeal, the term “G supply guide” as stated in the facts charged in the instant case contains the intent of the IF to attract subscription of the D regional housing association and to manage funds, which is an executor, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the said DD regional housing association and IF corporation are their nominal holders.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the title holder of the above "G Supply Guide" is not specified and that the title holder cannot be identified, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On February 22, 2014, the Defendant, as the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “B”), entered into a service contract for the partnership’s implementation affairs with respect to the construction project of the D Regional Housing Association and the D Regional Housing Association (tentatively named) of the D Regional Housing Association (tentatively named).

On June 7, 2014, the Defendant changed the “I” column for the Account Number column for the Account for Business Expense Promotion Expenses of the Cooperative in the “G Supply Guidebook” to “J” and “B” by using computers and printers, respectively, for the purpose of exercising it in the office of sales offices located in the F in the Ssung city, and then printed approximately KRW 100 through KRW 200, and changed the “G Supply Guidebook” in the name of D Regional Housing Association and I Co., Ltd., a private document concerning the certification of facts, and distributed it to the applicants of the association members who are not aware of the alteration from June 7, 2014 to the 23th day of the same month.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court’s judgment did not specify the “G Supply Manual” that the Defendant altered (hereinafter “instant notice”) in light of the content, form, and structure of the document, etc. as well as the content of the document.