All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, did not prepare a document under the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission, or did not participate in and printed out, the above act does not constitute an official document aiding and abetting. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principles as to the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, documents are documents related to documents under the Criminal Act, which are copies by means of the original or mechanical method capable of continuously displaying the intention or idea indicated on the material object, or its social function, credibility, etc. which can be identical, and their contents can be legally and socially accepted as evidence. Images on the computer monitoring screen are merely shown on the screen when a program to see image files is implemented, and they cannot be seen as continuously fixed on the screen because they cause electronic reaction at that time. Thus, documents related to documents under the Criminal Act do not constitute documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6068, Jul. 15, 2010). Since the defendant received instructions from the scambling staff to print out the documents of this case and received instructions from the Financial Services Commission to do so from the scambling employee under the name of the defendant, it cannot be deemed as unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles as to documents under the criminal law.

Therefore, the defendant's above misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

(b).