The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or mistake in the trial room) is that the Defendant obtained a visa to obtain a foreigner registration certificate and obtained a permit to extend his/her stay in Korea on the basis of the visa issued, without submitting false explanatory materials, while making a false assertion different from the facts. Therefore, there is no fact that the public official in charge of the affairs actively deceiving

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. In determining whether to accept an application from the other party, such as the issuance of visa by Korean consulates stationed in a foreign country, the relevant legal principles, on the premise that the reasons stated in the application may not be inconsistent with the facts, shall be examined and determined. Thus, if the person in charge of the affairs fully confirms the facts and accepts the false applicant's statements or explanatory materials submitted by the applicant without sufficiently verifying the facts, such acceptance is attributable to the insufficient examination by the person in charge of the affairs and does not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of public duties by fraudulent means.

However, in a case where an applicant makes a false assertion to a person in charge of the duties and submits a false supporting document corresponding thereto, if the person in charge of the duties to determine whether to accept the application has sufficiently examined the existence of the requirements as prescribed by the relevant provisions, but the reason for the application and the evidence were not found to be false, which led to the degree of allowing the applicant to accept the application, this constitutes a crime of interference with the performance of official duties by fraudulent means (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11862, Feb. 26, 2009). (b) In this case, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the trial court, the defendant tried to enter Korea on the ground of marriage, but the defendant was also the defendant.