The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be sentenced to six years of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In light of the victim ET’s legal statement in the lower court, etc., the Defendant granted only the authority to conclude a monthly rent contract in light of the misunderstanding of facts (as to the occupational breach of trust against ET among the 2017 High Order 372 cases)

However, it is insufficient to prove that there was no authority to conclude a lease contract.

In light of the above, the court below acquitted the defendant.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too unfluent and unfair.

B. Defendant 1’s assertion as to the overall crime is erroneous or misunderstanding of the legal principles) The Defendant was authorized by the owner of the studio Building in this case (hereinafter “the owner of the building in this case”) to freely adjust the amount of the rent and the amount of the rent guaranteed by the owner of the studio building in this case. However, under the premise that the total amount of the rent guaranteed was limited to the authority to conclude a monthly rent contract, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that recognized the Defendant’s occupational breach of trust, forgery of private documents, use of the above investigation documents, and establishment of fraud.

B) In the case of partial criminal facts, there is an error of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the modification of indictment, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the modification of indictment, even though the prosecution was instituted on the premise that the amount guaranteed by each household of the studio building was set, the court below ex officio determined “the limit of the total amount guaranteed.”

② In the case of breach of trust in the course of occupational duties against the victim F (the crime No. 1-b of the 2016 senior group 407 case): (a) the limit of the total amount of deposit was reduced from KRW 1.6 million to KRW 8 million in the contract for the management of the studio-house rental (hereinafter “entrusted management contract”) concluded with the victim; and (b) the same shall apply to the consignment management contract concluded with the other victims.

There is no basis to determine the person, and F enter into a lease contract.