The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) of this case’s reply to the question of this case does not constitute a public document, which is the object of the preparation of a false public document, by making a document not only to “an expression of legal opinion on a questioning civil petition,” but also not to “an expression of legal opinion on a legal relationship,” and the Defendants prepared an official document by applying the law mistakenly.

Even if there was no falsity on the factual basis of the application of the statute itself, and there was no perception of false facts.

2. Facts charged;

A. On January 16, 2009, the Defendants, E, asked F from the G Housing Site Development Project District H (hereinafter “Business Site H”) whether the construction of a primary complex is possible. The fact is that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport changed the announcement to add “the detached and multi-family housing” to “the primary purpose of the construction of a primary complex building on October 8, 2008, through the plan for the development of the Housing Site Development Project (3j) on October 8, 2008, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport changed the announcement to add “the primary purpose of the construction of the complex building at H” to “the primary purpose of the construction of the complex building at H,” and “the specific purpose of the construction of the G site at the time of construction of the G site at E, which is not permitted by the head of the headquarters at the time of construction of the building on January 30, 2009.”

Done at H of the work site, an official document stating that construction of a primary composite building is possible.

As a result, the defendants and E are to build G Housing Site Development Zones in M's official document M for the purpose of exercising.