In addition, the defendant was comprehensively delegated the operation of K by G, the nominal owner of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant was not subject to comprehensive delegation from G to K’s operation, and the fact that the Defendant instructed F at the time of the instant case to prepare a lease agreement in the name of G and deliver it to C is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the court below's finding of guilty of the facts charged is just, and it cannot be said that there is an error of mistake of facts.

① In the police investigation, the Defendant stated to the effect that “I are aware of the fact that I would like to demand the lessor to conclude the lease contract in the name of the individual, because I would have the corporate seal in advance in order to execute the lease contract in the name of the juristic person, I would like to report that I would like to say, “I would like to say I would know that I would have to conclude the lease contract in the name of G in the name of the representative director, and the F would have known that I would have known that I would have to conclude the lease contract in the name of G in the name of the representative director,” and that “I would have known that I would have known that I would have to conclude the lease contract in the name of G in the name of the representative director.”

(2) The F, at the request of the lessor, calls to the Defendant who is the actual operator of the company at the request of the lessor and provides the lessor with the terms of the lease contract under the name of G, a representative of the company, and the Defendant’s words, subject to the direction of the Defendant.