The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (attached Form 12 or 16, No. 12 or 16, the crime of violating the Housing Act (hereinafter referred to as “crime of violating the Housing Act”).

As to the crime of violation of the Housing Act, the crime of violation of the Housing Act was committed by B and C independently, and there is no fact that the defendant, who was performing community service order at the Daejeon Probation Office, was involved in the crime of violation of the Housing Act, and thus, the defendant shall be acquitted.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant conspired with B and C to commit a crime in violation of the Housing Act, so the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① The Defendant made confession in the lower court as to all the facts charged of this case including the part concerning the crime of violating the Housing Act. The confession statement was made under the sufficient assistance of the defense counsel, and is consistent with the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement and the statement made by other Defendants, and credibility exists in the confession and rationality.

(2) This part of the Housing Act violates the Housing Act, such as: (a) the Defendant, at the prosecution, stated that “AJ sale case and AK apartment sale case (attached Form No. 12 through 15) are under medical care in the AK apartment sale case at the time; (b) the Defendant, instead of the Defendant, requested C to receive the documents for application for parcelling-out from the disabled persons in lieu of the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant, along with the application documents for parcelling-out from the disabled persons, received the documents for application for parcelling-out from the disabled persons and filed a special parcel-out application in the name of the disabled persons (see, e.g., evidence No. 1458 to 1460).”