The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to the writing and event of a false official document, the document preparation and event, and the electronic records related to seal imprint, in order to change the seal imprint, the network G had no choice but to visit the public official in charge to obtain a seal imprint, and since the Defendant, who is a public official in charge, directly visited the network G and applied for a change of the seal imprint in a way that the network G voluntarily free from the network, applied for a change of the seal imprint in the seal imprint register, it cannot be said that there is any falsity in the seal imprint register. (ii) As to the writing and event of the official electronic records related to the application for a business trip, the Defendant actually sent a business trip within the jurisdiction of Q Hospital on November 22, 2017, there is no falsity in the business trip application.

3) As to the violation of the Resident Registration Act, the Defendant: (a) moved the Sindog G from Sindog to Sindog in order to facilitate the Defendant’s care and support; and (b) there was no bad faith prior to his resident registration since he moved to the Sindog G domicile in order to meet the policy to increase the population within the father at the time. (b) The sentence of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable; (c) the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to the preparation and event of false official documents; (d) the Defendant argued that the Defendant had the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal; and (e) the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation in detail under the title “determination of the Defendant’s assertion” in the judgment of the lower court, and there was no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the violation of the Resident Registration Act, it was false as to the resident registration as stated in this part of the facts charged.