The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts: The amount of KRW 50 million paid as a stock price on January 24, 201 and KRW 250 million paid as a stock price on January 28, 201 is normally paid. Since it was used to repay the company's obligations or to acquire the company's assets, it does not constitute the misrepresentation of the original authentic deed, which is based on the premise thereof.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the relevant legal principles and the principle of court-oriented trials, etc., comprehensively considering the results of the examination of evidence in the first instance trial and the results of the additional examination of evidence conducted by the time the argument of the appellate court is concluded, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court's decision is remarkably unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). 2) Specific Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant's argument and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below's duly adopted and investigated, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

① In order to promote the business (hereinafter “instant business”) of newly constructing and selling urban-type residential housing on the Daejeon Pung-gu V site 1,006 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).