The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) If the Defendant knew of the fact that the F’s name was stated in the instant monthly rent contract, F would have been presumed to have accepted it as a matter of course, and the said monthly rent contract aims to exercise to the Defendant as it was prepared and executed at the request of E.

It cannot be seen that the monthly rent contract of this case has the form and appearance to the extent that the F is believed to have been prepared by anyone.

Even if the crime of forging a private document is established, it is difficult to view it as the other party to the delivery of the document, and as the E knows the forgery, it is not established as the crime of copying the document.

2) The Defendant is merely an inevitable dividing the boundaries by a chair, etc. in order to distinguish from the space used by E, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of interference with business by constituting a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, in light of the following: (i) health class; (ii) in the court of original instance, F did not know the existence of the monthly rent contract of this case; (iii) did not have consented to the preparation of the monthly rent contract of this case explicitly or implicitly (the trial record 125 pages, 126 pages); (iv) did not anticipate the fact that the Defendant was sub-lease; and (v) stated that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the sub-lease contract of this case was prepared (the trial record 130 pages, 132 pages, 132 pages), the Defendant’s consent to the preparation of the monthly rent contract of this case cannot be presumed to have been presumed.

2) As to the assertion that there was no purpose to exercise the Defendant’s right, and that E was aware of forgery, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and ① the Defendant’s maintenance of sub-lease contracts between himself and E.