The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The phrase “the matters of actual relation of rights or rights of an object which has not been disclosed” of the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage is not a private document under G, but a document under the name of lessor F, as the Defendant stated with F’s consent, and thus, the crime of altering private document is not established. 2) Even if the above document is a private document under G’s name, the lessee sufficiently explained the relationship of rights of real estate at the time of the lease agreement, and agreed to supplement the content thereof in the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage at the later time, and thus, it does not constitute an alteration of

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following: (1) the explanation of confirmation and explanation of the object of brokerage is composed of ① the broker prepares the overall contents of the object of brokerage and deliver them to the contracting parties, and the contracting parties affix their signatures and seals to the meaning that the contents stated in the explanation were notified by the broker; (2) so, even if the explanation is made by the broker and signed and sealed on it, the entire explanation shall be deemed as a document jointly signed by the contracting parties so long as the contract parties have signed the meaning of confirming that the entire contents were notified by the contracting parties at the bottom of the explanation was signed and sealed by the lessor. Thus, the entire explanation shall be deemed as a document jointly signed by the contracting parties. Thus, the argument that the "rights of the object of brokerage" in the specification of confirmation and explanation of the object of brokerage of this case is not a private document in the name of G, and (2) the defendant and G were consistent with the fact that the order of priority between I and G was not definitely known at the time of the contract.