The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the wife of the Defendant in mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles obtained consent from G’s natural parents and filed a report of birth as a friendly child with the intention to adopt G. The report of birth is effective upon the report of adoption.

Even though the defendant stated the defendant in his/her application for the reissuance of G passport as his/her father, he/she is not issued a passport by unlawful means.

B. The first instance sentencing of the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. With respect to the assertion of mistake of fact, if the party has reported the birth of the natural father as the intention of adoption, and if all the “technical requirements for adoption” are met, the adoption takes effect even if it was erroneous in the form thereof, and the adoptive parent relationship has the same content as the parental relation, except for those that can be resolved by the dissolution of adoptive relation. Therefore, the report of birth of the natural father of a child in this case functions as the report of adoption that announces the adoptive parent-child relationship, which is a law,

In addition, an agreement on adoption is reached in order to ensure that the "effective requirements for adoption" are satisfied, a person under the age of 15 must fall on the behalf of his/her legal representative, and the adopted child shall not be a person who has the existence or extension of his/her adoptive parent, and there shall be no grounds for invalidation of adoption under any subparagraph of Article 883 of the Civil Act, as well as a fact of living as an adoptive parent, such as custody,

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Meu2321 Decided September 8, 201). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant obtained a reissuance of a G name passport by unlawful means as stated in the first instance court’s decision, and that the adoption as mentioned above satisfies the substantial requirements.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. On the assertion of unfair sentencing