The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding and legal principles: (a) the Defendants agreed to receive KRW 2.5 million from E in lieu of giving up all rights, such as the right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership under the judgment of winning a winning judgment (hereinafter “the judgment of return of oil”) regarding the return of legal reserve (hereinafter “the instant agreement”) around January 201, 201, with the belief of E that tax, such as inheritance tax, would not be levied when settlement is made in cash; (b) since a large amount of inheritance tax is imposed in excess of the agreed amount, and the Defendants legitimately revoked the said agreement on the grounds that there was an error in the important part of the legal act; (c) the registration of transfer of ownership and the registration of creation of a right to collateral security, which was completed according to the previous judgment of return of legal reserve, constituted a case where the Defendants did not have any false entry or did not have any intent to commit a crime.

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the illegal Defendants (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (1) is based on the legal interest to protect the public credibility of the official document that is recognized as having special credibility, such as the certificate of process under Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act. It is established by making a false report to a public official against the truth and having him enter or register false facts inconsistent with the substantive relations such as the original certificate of process or the same electronic record. Thus, even if there is no matter stated in the original copy of the certificate of process, etc. or there is a defect that falls under the invalidation even if there is an appearance, such statement constitutes a false entry (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9402, Mar. 10, 2006, etc.).