The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant B and Defendant B filed a marriage report with the genuine intention of marriage, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one month of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants: (a) came to know of the summary of Defendant B’s public prosecutor’s office from around 2009 that the G Company located in F in Yangju-si only came to know of the workplace rent; and (b) Defendant A, upon expiration of the period of stay on February 2, 2012, requested Defendant B of the Republic of Korea’s nationality, “the request for a false report of marriage to reduce KRW 15 million” to the effect that “the request for a false report of marriage to the Republic of Korea is made”; and (c) agreed to file a false report of marriage.

A) The Defendants, in accordance with the foregoing mother’s intent, entered false records, such as electronic records, of the Defendants: (a) around December 5, 201, at the Dong 23 Dobcheon Civil Service Center, as if they were in a genuine marital intent without a genuine marital intent, prepared a false report; and (b) submitted the false report to the public official in charge; and (c) entered false facts in the family relation registration information system managed by the Supreme Court.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to make a false report to the public official to record false facts in the family relation registration information system, which is the same electronic records as the original copy of the process deed.

B) The Defendants conspired with the Defendants to hold an event, such as an electronic record of false entries, and exercised the event by allowing the Defendants to keep the aforementioned information system on registration of family relations, which recorded false facts in the family relation registration information system at that time.

2) The lower court’s judgment.