The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s charge of preparing a false official document and the charge of carrying out a false official document, which is written by the Defendant, does not contain any false fact in the internal official document of “(H) registered with an unlawful purpose and method of violating the Automobile Management Act” (hereinafter “official document of this case”), and the fact-finding, which forms the basis of the judgment, is accurately stated, it is unlawful to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(2) The Defendant did not receive money or goods from B, and the Defendant’s ex officio cancels 143 vehicles under H’s name (hereinafter “instant vehicles”). As such, it is justifiable for the Defendant to have ex officio cancelled the 143 vehicles under H’s name, it does not constitute a crime of illegal action after the acceptance of the bribe and a crime of obstructing the exercise of rights by abuse of authority.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is established (1) as to the preparation of a false official document and preparation of a false official document is established at the time of entry contrary to the truth in the official document. As such, the preparation of a false official document is established by applying the law intentionally to the error of law.

Even if the facts constituting the premise for the application of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes are not false, the crime of preparing false official document cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4293, Feb. 11, 2003, etc.). According to the health unit in the instant case, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was requested by B, “the person who would be on the face of the ex officio cancellation of the registration of the instant vehicle,” “the person who will be on the face of the cancellation of the registration of the instant vehicle,” and only B and H, upon request.