The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was in charge of the lease, sale, and management of the building of this case owned by F, the convenience store of this case was located, and at least KRW 50 million was not paid by F at the time when each contract of this case was prepared, and accordingly, F was given the convenience store of this case without compensation to the Defendant under the pretext of paying the unpaid fee, etc. Accordingly, in the process, the Defendant prepared each contract of this case with F’s consent, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant committed a forgery of each contract of this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the judgment on the grounds for appeal are as follows: (i) the Defendant was to receive and operate the instant convenience store from F at the time when each of the instant contracts was prepared; (ii) the Defendant and F agreed to transfer the tobacco retail right within the instant convenience store to the Defendant; (iii) the Defendant applied for the revocation of the designation of an existing tobacco retailer; and (iv) Article 7(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, No. 397, Jan. 29, 2014) provides that the Defendant shall submit to the competent authority a document certifying the right to use the store in order to obtain the designation of a retailer of tobacco retail business; and (iv) since the F already has already been designated as a retailer in its name, it appears that the Defendant was aware that there was a need for a document certifying the right to use the instant convenience store in order to exceed the tobacco retail right in the instant convenience store; and (v) the F was responsible for the Defendant’s lease and seal of the instant building.