The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too minor for the original judgment.

2. Examining the conditions of sentencing indicated in the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed unfair.

3. Determination of the Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant did not interfere with legitimate performance of duties concerning entry and departure review and change of status of stay by a public official in charge of immigration control offices through deceptive means.

(1) The defendant has obtained a new passport under the name of "A (A)" and "A (E)" under Chinese laws and regulations.

(2) A (A) passport issued in the name of A (E) to undergo an immigration examination and an examination to change the status of stay shall have been a true passport issued in accordance with lawful procedures.

It was not so called a so-called “deficial passport” made using false or other person’s personal information.

(3) A passport presented to undergo an examination of entry into and departure from Korea and an examination of change of status of stay shall be deemed true and thus, there was any fraudulent means to interfere with legitimate performance of duties in connection with such duties.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. (1) In order to achieve the purpose of an offender’s act, the term “defensive scheme” in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive means means causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party and using the same. Accordingly, if a public official delegated by the law as the other party to a deceptive scheme misleads the other party with regard to lawful duties or makes a disposition, the above crime is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1554, Apr. 23, 2009). An act assessed as a “defensive scheme” is sufficient if it causes mistake, mistake, or land to the other party and uses it, and there is no need to constitute a separate crime or tort.

(2) We examine the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court and the appellate court.