The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The entry of the documents submitted after the lapse of the period for submission of the statement of reasons for appeal shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of appeal;

A. The Defendant and A did not conspired, and the Defendant did not participate in the crime of A.

Specifically, the fact that Article 1 of the facts charged of the instant case is the sole crime of A, and the fact that Article 2-2 of the above investigation document is the exercise of the above investigation document is the sole crime of the Defendant.

The Defendant did not have any intention on the fact that the Defendant exercised the instant investigation document No. 2-B of the facts charged, and on the fact that the Defendant had no intention to enter the original copy of the instant investigation document and the exercise of the original copy of the 3-B

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings (a) (the fact that the Defendant was appointed as a director at a temporary general meeting of shareholders of J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) on April 25, 2013, and (b) the appointment was revoked before the completion of the registration of appointment of directors.

Therefore, the Defendant filed a false report with respect to a public official who has filed a false registration in name and caused the Defendant to enter and exercise the “non-existence of false facts” in the register of J-based legal entities.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant argued the same purport in the court below's decision as to the assertion of mistake of fact, and the court below rejected this decision in detail. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of fact as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. (1) The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court stated in detail the judgment on the assertion.