A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The defendant of mistake of facts was newly constructed in 192 in the judgment of the court below and managed the co-owned households, including 402 units among them, with respect to delegation agreements with other co-owners. The lease contract of this case (hereinafter "the lease contract of this case") in the judgment of the court below is also made within the scope of such delegation. Even if there was no such explicit agreement on domestic affairs, other co-owners have not been interested in the management of the above co-owners for more than 10 years, and there was no interest, so other co-owners have managed the above co-owners, and the other co-owners have requested the settlement of the lease deposit increased in 209. In light of this, other co-owners have implied delegation to the defendant about the management of the lease of the co-owners, including the lease of the co-owners, and therefore, the preparation of the lease contract of this case should be deemed to have been impliedly consented to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is not a forgery of the above contract, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of two million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without authority to be recognized as a forgery of a pre-tax lease contract under the name of C and D by stating the name of C and D in the lessor’s column of the instant pre-tax lease contract and affixing the seal.

The Defendant and C’s H and D’s father were engaged in a partnership business and newly built the Ba Building as indicated in the judgment of the court below in 1992, and the lower court decided that the 401 and 402 units among the households not sold, and that the underground generation was co-ownership of the Defendant, C, and network K (each 1/3 shares).

. the net K.W.