All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) The Defendant’s moving-in report to a domicile where he does not actually reside in order to have apartment sold, is consistent with the fact that the Defendant made a disguised move-in report, but such act is merely an act subject to fines for negligence under the Resident Registration Act and does not constitute an act subject to criminal punishment.

B) As long as the Defendant applied for parcelling-out in accordance with the details of a move-in report already filed in the course of applying for parcelling-out ( regardless of whether the move-in report is a false report), this does not constitute an act of acquiring housing by “a false or unlawful means” under the Housing Act, and this does not constitute an act of disturbing the supply order.

C) As to the establishment of a public offense, the Defendant did not make a move-in report or intervene in the process of filing an application for parcelling-out, and did not make any part of the role sharing.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be punished as a joint principal offender for the violation of the Resident Registration Act and the Housing Act by the joint defendants of the court below.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the relevant statutes and joint principal offenders, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant A’s allegation of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, (a) judgment on the allegation of the misapprehension of the resident registration law, and (b) judgment on the violation of the resident registration law, the court below’s legitimately adopted and investigated, the Defendant or the joint Defendants did not actually reside.