The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 9,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with respect to eight households, including 301 units of multi-household housing (GF) located in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant housing”), and paid the amount in excess of the purchase price. As such, although the registration of ownership transfer under the above 301 was not made, the Defendant has the right to dispose of the said 301.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a de facto disposition authority, merely lent the above 301 subparagraph, and only prepared a lease contract, receipt, etc. by indicating himself as his agent, as the owner of the registration becomes E, and even if he was not qualified as an agent, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (nine million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination. The summary of Article 2(a) of the crime of this case is that "the defendant had H deliver the lease contract and the receipt of down payment prepared by using the qualification of the agent of H as if they were genuinely established." This is a case where a single act constitutes a commercial concurrent act by constituting two qualification-use document uttering, but it constitutes a case where a single act constitutes a commercial concurrent act, but "1. Commercial concurrent act" in the column of application of the law: Article 40 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act were omitted, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the above argument of mistake of facts by the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances.