The judgment below

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

Defendant

The sentence of sentence against A shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants alleged misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles concluded a lease agreement with D in mind that they will reside in Seoul to apply for refugee status in Seoul. Therefore, the instant lease agreement did not have the awareness that it was false, and there was no conspiracy between them.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s each sentence (2 million won each fine) sentenced to the Defendants is deemed to be too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 7, 2015, in the lower court’s ex officio determination with respect to the Defendants, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to the effect that the Defendants would interfere with the performance of their official duties by deceptive means among the instant facts charged against the Defendants, and the lower court notified the Defendants of the decision to permit the amendment of a bill of indictment

The purpose of applying for the amendment of the indictment is to cancel the prosecution against the obstruction of the performance of the official duties by fraudulent means in relation to the remaining facts charged. As such, the court below should have decided to dismiss the prosecution in accordance with Article 328 (1) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the obstruction of the performance of the official duties by fraudulent means among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants. However, the court below omitted its judgment.

However, the court below omitted the decision of dismissal on this part.

Even in this case where the defendants appealed, it would be sufficient to separately dismiss the prosecution on this part, and it is not necessary to reverse the judgment of the court below on the ground that it constitutes an unlawful cause affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1438, Apr. 24, 1992, etc.). Thus, the judgment of the court below is not reversed on the ground that it is not necessary to reverse

B. The declaration of consent to the evidence under Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is cancelled or cancelled before the examination of evidence is completed.