The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although the defendant mispersive of the facts did not delete or instruct the customer disturbance of the prosecutor's certificate.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the ground that the confession by the defendant at the prosecution in determining the assertion of mistake of facts differs from the legal statement.

In determining the credibility of a confession, it is not possible to determine whether there is a reason prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or a situation where there is a reasonable doubt in the motive or process of a confession, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: (a) whether the contents of the confession themselves are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the background leading up to the confession, and what does not conflict with or conflict with the confession among the evidence other than the confession; and (b) whether the confession does not conflict with the confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3924, Sept. 26, 2003). In full view of the above legal principles, the fact that the defendant instructs the removal of the customer disturbance of the prosecutor’s certificate can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

① The Defendant was investigated by the prosecution twice (one reference witness, one time, and the suspect) and led to the confession of all the facts charged of the instant case, and made a detailed statement on the circumstances, etc.

② The statement made by the Defendant confession was returned by two industries on the grounds that the consumer disturbance of the delivery company and the inspection certificate is different. The Defendant’s confession was made by hearing the words that the delivery company and the inspection certificate should be deleted and delivered, and the employees should be removed.