The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Since the competent authority has the authority and duty to practically examine whether the numerical value of a small environmental impact assessment report submitted by the Defendant in relation to the part concerning the obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means was the actual measurement value, the submission of a small environmental impact assessment report accompanied by a false measurement report by the Defendant to a public official was immediately hindered in the performance of official duties by fraudulent means.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1 of the mistake of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant was thought not only to use the name of C, but also to attach the false measurement and analysis report prepared by P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”) to the environmental impact assessment report, so it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the victims if he did not have the intent or ability to execute an environmental impact assessment by proxy or to prepare an environmental impact assessment report based on accurate environmental quality measurement, and furthermore, it is recognized that the relationship between the defendant's deception and the payment of service fees by the victims is recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of fraud is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. Obstructing the performance of official duties by a deceptive scheme is a specific and realistic performance of official duties by causing mistake, mistake, or land of the other party and causing a mistake or disposition of the other party by using it.