The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The other party to the contract for the lease of the defendant through an incomplete hearing or erroneous determination of facts was not D, but I (Representative DirectorO). The defendant was well aware of the above company and D, and the above company and D were not aware that the defendant was not authorized to conclude the lease contract by all sectional owners, and the problem of the removal of coffee shop was not definitely discussed. Thus, the defendant could not be deemed to have enticed the victim D.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts constituting the crime in its holding on a different premise due to insufficient deliberation.

B. In the statement of grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, the Defendant stated only the “guilty person” as the grounds for appeal.

However, during the last pleading, the defendant mentioned the agreement with the victim and mentioned the "pre-trial action, such as postponement of sentence".

The punishment (fine 5 million won) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court: (a) found based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court based on the following circumstances; (b) the power of attorney presented to D by the Defendant cannot be deemed as the content of delegation of authority on the conclusion of a lease agreement; (c) there is no other evidence to deem that the Defendant was granted the said authority; and (d) the E coffee shop (hereinafter “instant coffee shop”) located on the first floor of the building as indicated in the lower judgment by the managing body.

Inasmuch as the judgment in favor of the court of first instance is inconsistent with the judgment of winning the provisional execution book at the court of first instance, it is against the good faith principle that the defendant finally explained to D the authority to conclude the lease contract of the whole first floor of the above building and the early reputation of the lessee occupying the coffee shop in this case, etc. is contrary to the good faith principle that should be observed in the transactional relationship.