The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, etc. of registration officer’s formal review authority, the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means cannot be established. 2) Defendants’ act constitutes legitimate act.

B. The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating in detail the decision. If the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, are examined, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means is established.

We do not accept this part of the Defendants’ assertion.

(1) Where a person liable for registration loses a certificate of registration, the order of D to file an application for the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Defendant A with respect to real estate owned by D shall be accompanied by an application for registration, or a document confirming that the attorney-at-law or a certified judicial scrivener has received delegation from D who is the person liable

When a registration officer receives a confirmation document prepared by a certified judicial scrivener, he/she does not have a duty to examine the defect in the confirmation document, and it will be sufficient to proceed with the registration procedure on the premise that the above confirmation document is a legally prepared confirmation document.

As in the instant case, since a certified judicial scrivener submitted a document confirming that he was delegated by D, the person responsible for registration, the registration officer shall be deemed to have committed the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, insofar as he/she received an application for registration by fraudulent means.

② The Defendants changed to the purport that registration officials only have the authority to conduct a formal examination, but do not constitute official duties in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, because they do not have the authority to conduct a substantive examination.