The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

However, for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On January 14, 2020, a summary of the grounds for appeal shall include the description of the reasons for appeal submitted on January 14, 2020.

A. In a situation where misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles becomes the chief executive officer of the instant shopping mall management team in an inappropriate manner, the Defendant was a legitimate representative, as he/she was the former chief executive officer.

B. Even if the sentencing was unfair, the lower court’s punishment (1.5 million won in penalty) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the Defendant was a lawful representative at the time of the instant case by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

According to the evidence of this case, the defendant was the head of the management group of the commercial building of this case and his term of office terminated, and was appointed as the head of the management group of the commercial building of this case on February 27, 2019, and thereafter appointed D as the head of the management group of the commercial building of this case upon resignation of C, and the fact that the defendant was designated as the head of the management group of the commercial building of this case on September 9, 2019, and it is only recognized that the defendant was qualified as the representative at the time of the preparation of each of the documents of this case, or was a lawful person

There is no basis to consider.

The Supreme Court Decision 2007Da6307 Decided June 15, 2007, which is asserted by the defendant as the ground, differs from the case in which the director is appointed lawfully, and it does not apply to this case as it is, and there are circumstances similar to the above legal principles of the judgment in this case.

shall not be effective.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, there is no criminal history against the Defendant prior to the instant crime.

There are extenuating circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime and do not seem to have committed the instant crime for personal interest.

After this case, the defendant was also designated as a job alternative according to the court's decision.

In addition, considering all of the various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, the court below's punishment is determined to be unfair.