The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant comprehensively delegated the authority to conclude the sub-lease contract from F, the owner of the building, and concluded the sub-lease contract in this case.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found all of the facts charged of this case guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the court below did not agree to the sub-lease contract of this case from the investigative agency to the law of this Court. (1) The defendant did not agree to the sub-lease contract of this case, (2) The defendant did not agree to the sub-lease contract of this case.

In full view of the facts revealed, the Defendant’s assertion was rejected on the ground that F may be recognized that the Defendant did not delegate to the sub-lease contract of the instant real estate.

B. In addition to the above judgment of the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant, with the consent of the owner (F) of the sub-lease contract entered into with K prior to the instant case, was registered by the investigative agency, and therefore, the F did not obtain a separate consent on the sub-lease contract of this case entered into after the instant case.

“A statement to the effect that the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant had been kept in custody of the F’s seal, or that the Defendant had been kept in custody of the F’s seal from U, U, or given KRW 3,000 at the time of concluding the sublease contract of this case.