A. Since the Defendant, who is the person who is the title holder of the instant contract, obtained the consent of D, the mother of D, and written the phrase “(it may cause delay of construction work)” in the instant contract (hereinafter “instant phrase”), the Defendant did not modify the instant contract.

B. In light of the overall conditions of sentencing on the sentencing, the lower court’s sentence of KRW 2,00,000 (fine 2,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts is just to add all parts of the contract to be kept by both parties if the court below agreed to add the phrase of this case between the defendant and E at the time when the contract of this case was lawfully adopted and investigated, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i., ① add the phrase of this case to two parts of the contract to be kept by both parties, and ② add the phrase of this case to the contract of this case to be kept by E, although the defendant attempted to add the phrase of this case to the contract of this case to be kept by E, due to mistake, although the defendant tried to add the phrase of this case to the contract of this case, the defendant stated C's account number on the back of the contract of this case as soon as the two copy of the contract of this case was written immediately after the contract of this case was written, and it does not seem to have been confused with the contract of this case to the extent of additional entry into the contract of this case.