The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, along with C, did not file a false complaint because he did not go to the office of regular Eup/Myeon or prepared an application for the registration of transfer of a vehicle, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case due to the mistake of fact.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal shall be made ex officio prior to the judgment.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment with prison labor by this court on November 5, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 13, 2015. Meanwhile, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant at the branch office of the former branch office of the former branch office of the Eup/Myeon Office by mail on January 22, 2015 and submitted a false complaint to C through mail, and thus, the crime of this case is not in the relation of concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of this case is not in the relation of concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but the court below imposed a punishment by applying the law related to it, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.

Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined below.

3. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, although the defendant prepared an application for the registration of the transfer of motor vehicle under the name of the defendant with C and submitted it to the public official in charge, C voluntarily submitted a written complaint to the public official in charge for the punishment of C because C had forged the application for the registration of the transfer of motor vehicle under the name of the defendant, and submitted it to the public official in charge, it can be sufficiently recognized that C had not been punished. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake is groundless (the defendant'