A. Legal principles

Since the obligor indicated in the Decision on Provisional Disposition for the Prohibition of Use of Hot Spring Water, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisional Disposition") No. 2006Kahap118 (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisional Disposition"), which Nonindicted Party 1 received against the Iron Tourist Hotel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Yol Tourist Hotel"), is an original tourist hotel, the Defendant, who is the lessee, does not have the effect of the above Provisional Disposition Order. Accordingly, the Defendant's act does not constitute the elements of the crime of nullification of

B. Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the defendant's weak intent and the defendant's age, criminal records, academic background, career, family relationship, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of suspended sentence and 200 hours of community service order in August) is too unreasonable, which is too unreasonable for the defendant to be sentenced by the court below.

2. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized:

(1) On April 199, Non-Indicted 3, the representative director of the non-indicted 3, who was the non-indicted 3, acquired the steel franchis hotel from Non-indicted 2, the steel franchis hotel 20-20, and developed the hot spring on October 13, 200, and operated the steel franchis hotel, which is a facility such as accommodation and public bath, with the permission for temporary utilization of hot spring from the head of the steel fransium, and the defendant, as a relative with Non-indicted 3, bears approximately KRW 1.2 billion for the development of the hot spring subject to the above temporary utilization permission.

(2) On January 5, 2001, the Defendant issued a letter of transfer from Nonindicted 3 to January 10, 2001, to the effect that the right to permit the utilization of hot spring water and the right to receive a transfer of all facilities, in a case where the steel farm does not pay KRW 1.2 billion, such as the above hot spring development cost, to the Defendant.

(3) The Defendant did not pay the amount of money promised to the Defendant even after the date specified in the above note has passed, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Iron Tourist Hotel for the change of the name of permission under the Seoul District Court's 2001Gahap1611, which was rendered a favorable judgment on October 19, 2001, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 21, 2001.

(4) According to the above judgment, the Defendant applied for a change in the name of the right to use a hot spring, but the above right to utilize a hot spring was not subject to transfer, and the application for change of the name was rejected. On January 3, 2002, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonindicted 3, the representative director of the steel farm, and Nonindicted 3, the land (including the hot spring water usage right) on the first floor of a tourist hotel, designating the lease deposit as KRW 1 billion and monthly rent as KRW 1 billion, and the monthly rent to be paid by the Defendant on July 1, 2002. The Defendant used the instant hot spring water from around July 1, 2002 by setting the lease deposit as KRW 1 billion and KRW 1 billion.2 billion, which is part of the lease deposit to be paid by the Defendant, in lieu of the payment of the lease deposit and monthly rent to be paid by the Defendant.

(5) Meanwhile, on December 19, 2000, Nonindicted 3 sold all of corporeal movables and hot spring water usage rights to Nonindicted 2, 150 million won to Nonindicted 1, a creditor of the provisional disposition of this case, in order to recover the check of the number of shares issued by the Iron Tourist Hotel in order to cause problems in the operation of the hotel, such as the failure to pay debts around July 2000, and on December 30, 2004, Nonindicted 2 transferred all of the hot spring hole 2 and hot spring water usage rights to Nonindicted 1, a creditor of the provisional disposition of this case.

around June 2005, Non-Indicted 1 applied for provisional injunction on the use of hot spring water, etc. at the Jung Government District Court 2005Kahap409, which had been attended twice together with Non-Indicted 3 on the date of examination of the above case, and on October 25, 2005, Non-Indicted 3 explained the contents of mediation by telephone in order to obtain consent of the defendant while mediating with Non-Indicted 1 and explained the contents of mediation on October 25, 2005, and the right to use hot spring water acquisition facilities was granted to Non-Indicted 1, and the conciliation was concluded to enter into a lease agreement with respect to hot spring acquisition facilities by mutual agreement.

(6) Nonindicted 1 again filed an application for provisional disposition of this case with the intention of not being implemented as the above conciliation decision, and on April 6, 2006, upon receiving the provisional disposition order of this case on April 17, 2006, and ordered Nonindicted 4 to install a bulletin board for the prohibition of using hot spring water on April 17, 2006, but the Defendant continued to use hot spring water until July 24, 2006.

(7) On September 4, 2006, Nonindicted Party 1 filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a claim for hot spring water use fee (2006Gahap6475) with the District Court Decision 2006Gahap6475 on May 11, 2007, and the conciliation was concluded with Nonindicted Party 1 to pay KRW 20 million to Nonindicted Party 1 until June 30, 2007.

B. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole based on the above facts, i.e., the defendant continued to use hot spring water prior to the provisional disposition of this case, the defendant was aware of the fact that the previous provisional disposition of this case was filed by Nonindicted 1, the creditor of provisional disposition, and the mediation was completed, the mediation was made to pay hot spring usage fees to Nonindicted 1 in the lawsuit of claiming hot spring usage fees against the defendant, which was brought by Nonindicted 1, and the defendant tried to operate hot spring usage fees under the name of the right to permit hot spring, but the defendant borrowed the form of a lease because the change of the right to permit was not sufficient, and used hot spring water. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant appears to have been in the location of the same party as the debtor of provisional disposition in the decision of provisional disposition of this case, and it cannot be expected

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as criminal records, age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., when considering the fact that the defendant had been well aware of the content of the provisional disposition decision of this case and the notice to the same purport, he did not determine that the punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable, and thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-Dung (Presiding Justice)