The judgment below

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the case No. 2018 Godan468 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

1. Determination ex officio as to the part of the case in the first instance judgment No. 2018 Highest 468

A. Of the facts charged in the case of the 2018 Godan468 case, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the portion of the charges, such as public electronic records, and public electronic records, which found that the Defendant filed a false application for the establishment registration of a limited liability company, and had a registered public official aware of such fact record and kept the same electronic records as the original electronic records of a notarial deed, and exercised it by having him/her record and keep it.

B. Where promoters, etc. of a stock company can be deemed to have established by registering the establishment of a company in accordance with the requirements and procedures for the establishment of a company under the Commercial Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, the registration of establishment of the company and the details thereof shall not constitute the false facts as stated in the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of authentic deeds or the public electronic records,

At the time of incorporation of the Company by promoters, etc., there was an intention or purpose of crime using the Company without actually operating the Company.

solely on the ground that a company did not have the substance of its business, such as human and physical organization, cannot be deemed to have recorded false facts in the corporate register.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Do9293 Decided February 27, 2020, etc.). C.

In this case, if the defendant completed the registration of incorporation legally in accordance with the substantive procedural requirements of the establishment of a company in accordance with the related laws such as the Commercial Act, there is room for not to establish the crime of false entry, such as public electronic records, and the crime of exercising such rights.

Nevertheless, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting of this part of the facts charged on different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of false entry, such as public electronic records, and the establishment of such crime, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.