A. The Defendant concluded a sales contract with G and paid down payment on the instant land, and thereby G agreed to the division of the instant land, which led the broker to prepare an application for land alteration in the name of G, etc., and did not have any intention to forge and exercise the private document, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged.

B. Even if the court below found the defendant guilty, the sentence of imprisonment (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 The lower court acknowledged the assertion of mistake of facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and 2. According to the circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, etc. knew from G, etc. that it did not obtain consent to the division between F’s land and G’s land, and gave an intermediary a direction to divide the said two

① After entering into a sales contract for the instant land at an investigative agency, the Defendant stated that G agreed to the division, stating that “The Defendant purchased both the F’s land and G’s land.”

However, G consistently denied that there was no way that the Defendant expressed to the effect that “Ahhhhhhhhhh,” as such, and the P, which mediated a sales contract between the Defendant, F, and G, also stated that “G,” by dividing the land 2,000 square meters on the side of G into 1,000 square meters and selling KRW 2,00,000 per square meter, only agreed to sell the land at KRW 20,000 per square meter.”

In fact, the Defendant entered into a contract to purchase the land of KRW 1,000 of G shares at KRW 200 million, and KRW 1,000 of the land of the Social Welfare Foundation N established by G at KRW 300 million. The content that G consented to the Defendant is the land of the F at issue and that of the G.