A. From the lower judgment of the lower court, the Defendant: (i) committed the crime related to the Victim Q (Fraud, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of the aforementioned investigation document) among the lower judgment; (ii) the Defendant, with respect to the Seo-gu AP lending AH (hereinafter “AP lending AH”) in Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “AP lending AH”), drafted a charter agreement upon delegation from AU, the owner, as follows:

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that convicted of this part of the facts charged is improper.

- The Defendant, around May 2016, agreed to sell and buy AP lending AH H when the Defendant purchased a new house.

However, the APP lending offered a tenant who is not well sold, and sold AP lending AH by lowering the sale price.

Accordingly, the Defendant prepared a pre-tax lease agreement with Q, a lessor, and a lessee, and received KRW 40,000 from Q to send the balance of the new house to CZ, which was a seller of the house newly purchased by AU, and thereafter Q moved into AP lending AH.

In light of the following circumstances recognized by the court below's judgment and the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, it is recognized that the defendant concluded a lease deposit with AP without the delegation of AU and acquired a lease deposit from A Q.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① At the investigative agency and the lower court, the AU stated to the effect that “The Defendant did not have been entrusted with entering into a lease agreement on AP lending AH, or received KRW 40 million from the Defendant.”

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was delegated the lease contract from AU.S.

② On the other hand, as seen above, the Defendant is a house newly purchased by APP lending AH with the deposit of KRW 40 million.