The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal reasoning is that the report prepared by the misunderstanding Defendants on the result of inspection of the matters reported by a civil petition (hereinafter “instant document”) is an electronic document, and it does not constitute a document for preparation of a false official document and a document for execution of a false official document.

However, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of each court below (the Defendants’ each fine of KRW 700,000) that is unfair for sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor’s ex officio determination: (a) maintained the preparation of a false official document and the presentation of a false official document as the primary facts charged; (b) as to the name of the crime, “an electronic document, etc., and an electronic document,” Articles 227-2 and 229 of the Criminal Act were “Article 227-2 and Article 229 of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law; and (c) applied the following facts charged to apply for the amendment of an indictment to add an additional statement of the facts constituting the offense (hereinafter “the judgment used again”); and (d) thereby, this court granted this permission (hereinafter “the conjunctive facts charged”). As such, the subject of the judgment of the court was different (the Additional Preliminary facts charged as seen below), the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged in the judgment of the court is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of legal principles

A. The summary of the primary facts charged is “Defendant A is the head of the F team of the department E of the D military office, and Defendant B is the person in charge of the affairs such as authorization and permission of food sanitation establishments while serving as the local public officials of Grade VI working for the F team.

1. On July 12, 2016, the Defendants preparing false official documents are changed to the place of business of H rice farm in a mushroom plant located in Chungcheongnamnam G on July 12, 2016.