The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 20(2)2 of the former Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (amended by Act No. 9408 of Feb. 3, 2009) refers to the case where an external auditor, who is an actor, expresses his/her awareness of or his/her audit facts and the result of his/her judgment on the audit report, and makes a statement that is not true even though he/she knows that his/her recognition is inconsistent with the details written in the audit report.

However, it is not false because the external auditor's perception or judgment stated in the audit report complies with the truth, and even if not, it is not so.

Even in cases where one asserts that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was false, the falsity of the statement and the intention to make a false statement shall be proved by the method of proving indirect facts that have a substantial relation with him/her in light of the nature of the object, and in such cases, what constitutes indirect facts that have a substantial relation should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the sound observation or analysis according to the normal rule of experience.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4471 Decided August 23, 2007). Criminal facts have been proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection and probative value of evidence, which is based on the premise of fact finding, belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). 2. The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and found the defendant as an accountant in charge of the FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) for a long time, while working for the defendant as an accountant in charge of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).