The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the original trial 2018 High Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 203Mo203) the Defendant was delegated by F to all acts such as preservation, lease, management, etc. of B lending D and L owned by F. The Defendant

The defendant's act does not constitute forgery of private documents, uttering, or fraud, since the defendant prepared a lease agreement under the name of F and received a security deposit from the victims who are lessees according to the above delegation.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (an administrative fine of 2 million won for the crime of fraud referred to in subparagraph 3 of Article 2018, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 3-2, 201, 2018, 202, 202, and 203, 2018, 2018, 203) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (related to the original trial 2018 High Court 201, 2018 High Court 203)

A. As seen in the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court, in light of the fact that the Defendant received the power of attorney from F and stated that the power of attorney was delegated to the Defendant with the right to lease real estate, and that the Defendant thereafter allowed the actual lessee to occupy and use the loan, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, despite the fact that the Defendant did not have been entrusted with F with the right to lease a private document in the name of F, forged and exercised the lease contract, and obtained the lease deposit by deceiving K, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit fraud, use, or fraud.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

① On August 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) with respect to F lending D, (b), (c), and (h) in Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, Seoul.