The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground of D’s testimony lacking objectivity, etc., in the event that misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles directly signed the lease agreement, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or by misapprehending of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant forged the lease agreement in the name of D and uses it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and thus, the above assertion by the

① D consistently states to the effect that “No one has prepared a lease agreement with the Defendant,” from an investigative agency to the lower court’s court, and the signature of the said lease agreement differs from one’s own signature.”

(2) The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D and paid to D the deposit amount of KRW 20 million as a check.

Although the check number was presented to the investigative agency, the check number is not an inquiry from the issuing bank, and half of them are overlapping with the check that the defendant gave D the purchase price.

③ There is no evidence that the Defendant offered D the rent of KRW 200,000 per month as stated in the lease agreement.

(4) The defendant first requested D to prepare a lease contract.

One of the arguments is that the debtor who should return the lease deposit is actively demanding the preparation of the lease contract, and in particular, the defendant and D are living together at that time.