1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

1 The defendant shall not later than seven days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is rewritten or added as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A new or additional part of the judgment of the first instance; and

(a) Court rulings of the first instance;

1. D.

The portion of the "Accusation against the plaintiff (No. 4. 10-13)" (No. 4. 10-13) shall be followed as follows:

On the other hand, on October 1, 2014, the Y organization accused the Plaintiff to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office as a crime of preparing false public document and an accompanying event, a public official qualification title teachers, the Medical Service Act, the crime of interference with business, the crime of abusing authority, the crime of intimidation, H and G, etc.

H around 10:00 on August 13, 2014, in the situation where police officers of the Seocho Police Station enforced a warrant for search and seizure of a non-party hospital, H had the hospital employees prepare a written statement on the suspicion of insurance fraud, thereby misrepresenting the police officers who are public officials' qualifications and exercise their authority ex officio.

‘A summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million on January 14, 2016 is being issued and now formal trial (Seoul Central District Court 2016Da307) is in progress.

(No. 5). On January 5, 2016, the prosecution made a disposition that the prosecutor has no suspicion of all of the remainder except for the part of the public official qualification title of H.

(A) No. 18, b.

Judgment of the first instance court

3.(c)

2) Part b) (2) (2) at the bottom of 12 up to 3 up to 13 up to 14 up to 12) are re-written as follows:

Then, the plaintiff had the insurance company staff be seized and seized by deceiving the police as police.

or with regard to the fact that an insurance company's employee led to search and seizure.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 7, 18, Eul evidence 4, and 5, the plaintiff and the police officer who participated in the search and seizure process, present the warrant and the police identification card to Gap, and explain the name of the crime and the execution procedure to Gap, and instruct the commencement of the execution.