All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment)’s punishment imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, fine of five million won, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, C (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) and C were not involved in the crime of altering and uttering of an altered official document in this case, but they were convicted of this part of the judgment below which rendered the judgment, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B and C

A. As a matter of principle, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, it is necessary for the joint principal offender to commit a crime through functional control by the joint doctor, which is a subjective requirement, through functional control by the joint doctor, which is an objective requirement, and the intention of joint process is to be integrated to commit a specific criminal act with the joint principal’s intent, and to shift one’s own intent by using another’s act.

Although such intent to jointly process is not sufficient to recognize the crime of another person and not to restrain it, there is a trade name where each accomplice does not need to do so in advance, and there is sufficient reason for each accomplice to share the elements of a crime or the actions in essence related to the elements of a crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). In addition, in a case where the combination of doctors is formed by mutual agreement in order or impliedly and through mutual agreement between several persons even if the whole mother process does not exist, a competitive relationship is established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011). In the case of a co-principal, the means and form of crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, the time and place of crime.