The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of each of the instant charges in the following respect:

① The Defendant had already submitted necessary documents to request the disclosure of information, and the person in charge did not have received the documents so that he/she could tear the documents already submitted, such as facts constituting a crime No. 1, because he/she did not have any intent to undermine the utility of the documents for public use.

② As above, the Defendant thought that the original is not meaningful only with a copy of the original, and did not have a criminal intent to impair the utility of the official document as in paragraph (2) of the crime.

2) Although the Defendant did not know that the act of tearing the official document constitutes a crime, the lower court found the Defendant guilty.

3) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. The object of the crime of nullifying a public document on the assertion of mistake of facts is irrelevant to whether the public document was received after the process was completed or its validity was taken place (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do368, Oct. 12, 1982). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant can arbitrarily recognize the fact that the request for disclosure of information, etc. submitted to the inside branch office of the Labor Welfare Corporation was teared, and thus, the said documents were either copied or still being prepared.

Even if the public document invalidation is established, the public document invalidation is established.

Furthermore, as alleged by the Defendant, the person in charge was denied that the documents already submitted were not submitted.

Even if such circumstance alone makes it impossible to justify the act of arbitrarily damaging the official documents.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified.

3. The mistake of the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, which is a judgment of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, refers to the legal site.