The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since the Defendant and the obligees concluded a water guarantee contract that provides the current and US goods as collateral and the intent is consistent, the Defendant did not pay a profound attention to the entry of the “joint and several surety” printed in the monetary loan contract, and only entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed without paying a profound attention to the entry of the “joint and several surety”.

The defendant did not have intention to make false entry in the original notarial deed.

The punishment (fine 10 million won) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant was signed as the debtor and the agent of E in Chapter 3 of the monetary loan contract, which is specified as joint and several sureties; ② the creditor J and K stated in the court below that the defendant was "E should be included as joint and several sureties" at the time of preparing each of the above notarial deeds; ② the defendant stated that E was aware of the fact as joint and several sureties in the notarial deed of the monetary loan loan contract; ③ the defendant argued that he signed without paying due attention to the entry of the joint and several sureties only when the defendant reaches the court of the court below, ④ the defendant was unable to properly understand the meaning of "joint and several sureties".

In full view of the facts that it is difficult for the defendant to formally understand or obtain simple side letters, it is recognized that the defendant entrusted the preparation of each of the above notarial deeds to E's representative status without the consent of E so that the facts of the notarial deed can be entered in the notarial deed, and the defendant's intention is also recognized.