The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact mistake (as to interference with the execution of public duties by deceptive means), D, which meets the requirements for permission of the instant charging station, merely applied for permission as an interest partner of the Defendant’s joint business, and the Defendant did not conspired to obtain permission by borrowing only the name as stated in D, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case (the Defendant asserted that, on June 7, 2016, the submission period was submitted after the lapse of the submission period for the appeal, it was against the Act on Special Measures concerning the Designation and Management of Areas subject to Restriction on Development for the foregoing reason, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it was raised after the expiration of the submission period for the appeal, and even after ex officio examination is conducted, as shown in Section 2(a) above, D cannot be a lender of the name and the Defendant was fully recognized as having obtained permission, as if D actually operated the instant charging station under the name of D, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged in the foregoing.

(b) misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to interference with the performance of official duties in a deceptive scheme), and filing an application for permission under a contract with the resident of the instant charging suit is not allowed.

Even if the permitting authority confirms the fact of the gold only, he/she can easily find out whether the resident only lends the name and the non-resident is established.

Nevertheless, since an administrative agency made a good faith and permission, it does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties by using a deceptive scheme.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in August, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., Kim Jong-si designated as a development restriction zone B.