A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts as to the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of a falsified document, Defendant A, in order to prevent the seizure due to the overdue payment of the Benz's obligation purchased under the name of E, Case JK and Jamtel M (hereinafter referred to as “instant officetel”).

) Since it is necessary to make a provisional registration under the name of N, the receipt for the sales contract amount under the name of E with the consent and signature and seal of E (hereinafter “the receipt of this case”).

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of a falsified document, which recognized that Defendant A forged the instant receipt, and found Defendant A guilty of the crime of forging private documents. 2) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the crime of fraud, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the Defendant A did not conclude that the victim W was the operator of Pyeongtaek-si Utel office.

In addition, the victim W entered into a sales agency contract with V for the above 20 households. Since there was money to be paid from V according to the sales agency contract with the above 20 households that the Defendant entered into with V, the victim only paid 35 million won, which is part of the down payment to V according to the instructions of V, directly to the Defendant.

Therefore, after the conclusion of the contract for sale by sale between the victim W and V, the obligation to return the said down payment of KRW 35 million is imposed on V, and the defendant A had no fact of deceiving the victim W during this process or deceiving the victim W money. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of this part of the crime of fraud is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

3 misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on fraud No. 2017 Godan1840, Defendant A introduced victims E who had previously been engaged in real estate services and brokerage services to Y, but the victims E voluntarilyD.