The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in reliance on the advice of a certified judicial scrivener to the effect that, in light of the current status of ownership of stocks of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”), the defendant lawfully registered the change of the representative director and director of the instant company under the Commercial Act even without holding a general meeting of shareholders, and placed documents and seals requested by a certified judicial scrivener.

After that, a certified judicial scrivener exclusively conducted registration procedures concerning the change of the representative director and inside director of the company of this case, and there is no fact that the defendant actually intervened.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The fact that the defendant, after obtaining advice from a certified judicial scrivener, delegated affairs concerning the registration of change of the representative director and inside director of the company of this case to a certified judicial scrivener, and accordingly, the fact that the documents required for the registration of change of the representative director and inside director have been prepared and completed is recognized as

However, the fact that a certified judicial scrivener conducted the registration procedure for changing the representative director and inside director of the company of this case by the defendant's request and delegation is that the defendant did not participate in the registration procedure.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, even if the defendant's assertion that "the company of this case is entitled to legally register the change of representative director and director under the Commercial Act without holding a general meeting of shareholders in light of the status of stock holding, etc., the company of this case is an error in law that constitutes a mistake in law and did not have an awareness of illegality as it constitutes a mere legal site and does not interfere with the establishment of a crime."

The mere fact that the defendant asserts does not constitute a crime under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

. is justified in mistake.