The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the 1-5 units of evidence B Nos. 102, 104, 202, 204, and 304 (the portion originally allocated as shares of T) in each sale plan list of evidence B No. 10-5, consultation with D about the disposition, etc. was held in advance, and D comprehensively delegates the disposition, etc. to the defendant.

In addition, regarding the remaining seven generations that D sold in lots, D confirmed the sales price, etc. from D to D several parts, and confirmed them several times.

Therefore, the defendant's testimony to the effect that D was involved in the whole number of units listed in the plan for sale is not a false statement against memory.

B. After obtaining a daily confirmation from D and D parties with respect to the sale price and balance of the head office sold in lots, the Defendant drafted the first sale schedule (No. 10 evidence 1) with D and D around February 2008.

In this case, D continued to change the remaining balance of the Hoho Lake, which it sold to it, and the defendant, after obtaining confirmation from several parties, continuously reflected the balance claimed by D and revised the sales plan.

Therefore, the defendant's testimony to the effect that D confirmed the balance and prepared the first purchase plan to receive the balance on D's page, and that D continued to change the balance by the number of houses claimed by D, at that time, the defendant found the balance and corrected the sale plan list by confirming the balance and revising the sale plan list to the effect that the statement was increased to five pages in the process, is not a false statement contrary to memory.

(c)

With respect to heading 201 and 103, there was no substantial dispute between D, Defendant, and water division. Since the sale of heading 201 and 202 was in place D, D stated “the completion” as there was no dispute over the above headings.

The Defendant’s testimony to the effect that “ is not a false statement contrary to memory.”

(d)

Nevertheless, the lower court found otherwise guilty of the facts charged.