The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was not known whether C was not subject to a report on the request for perusal or duplication by C, and it was not known whether C had received the said request. The Defendant sent a written answer to C at will by putting the former president I or D’s official seal on keeping the official seal of the president of the partnership.

The Defendant came to know that there was such a request from the investigative agency C to be investigated, and instructed D to comply with it, but D did not comply with this.

In light of the above, the defendant did not have intention to commit the facts charged in this case, and the court below convicted the defendant, and there is an error of misconception of facts.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) when a request for perusal or duplication of the implementation of a rearrangement project enters the association site, the head of the accounting office reports the time limit for disclosure of information due to perusal or duplication, and the head of the office makes a report to the head of the association, and (ii) the above documents are bound by the document receipt ledger and the document delivery ledger and kept in the association office; (iii) according to the statement at the court of the court of the judgment of the D, D keeps the official seal of the head of the association upon delegation by the defendant; (iv) there were several penalties for office or document keeping keys; and (iv) before the defendant was elected as the head of the association, D made a report on perusal or duplication to the defendant; and (v) after the defendant was elected as the head of the association on August 26, 2017, the defendant was employed as the head of the association around September 21, 2017, and (v) around September 21, 2017.