All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendants related to "consular confirmation, etc. under paragraphs 1 and 5 of the judgment of the first instance."

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion, such as misapprehension of the legal principles as to “official document” and “false” related to the preparation of a false official document, the term “documents related to duties” refers to documents prepared by a public official within his/her authority and authority, and the document does not necessarily require any legal basis, and is also included in the case where his/her authority is formed by an order, internal rule, or custom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do3401, Apr. 14, 1995). Whether a specific act falls under the duties of a public official or not shall be determined by taking into account the practical aspects of the public official’s performance as well as the practical aspects of the public official’s performance, which can be reasonably deemed necessary in relation to his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4785, Sept. 24, 2009).

() Defendant D, a consul dispatched to Z consulates in the official form, is a consul in charge of the accident belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In an unofficial manner, Defendant D, who works as a consul in charge of the accident belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and is a consular official within the scope of duties performed by a consul dispatched from the NIS according to the instructions of the NIS, as part of official duties within the scope of duties performed by the consul assigned from the NIS, and as part of official duties, “a confirmation and a confirmation of facts” (Article 1 of the judgment of the first instance) and “a confirmation of December 17, 2013” (Article 5 of the judgment of the first instance court), and “a confirmation of December 17, 2013” (Article 5 of the judgment of the

The judgment below

The above legal principles, the original judgment, and the first instance court legally adopted the reasons.