The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in the instant complaint cannot be readily concluded as false facts, and even if the Defendant did not have the intention to make a false report, it did not have the intention to have a criminal punishment imposed upon the Defendant, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the written consent to abolish the use of State property, the judgment on the portion related to the forgery of the pledge after the abolition of the purpose of use, and the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below, the Defendant may fully recognize that C had not used the written consent to abolish the use of State property of this case (hereinafter “the written consent of this case”), and the written consent to abolish the use of State property of this case (hereinafter “written consent of this case”), and that C had not used the written consent to abolish the use of State property of this case, and filed a false report with C on the false fact that C used the said document with the intent to have criminal punishment imposed upon the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this part is without merit.

① It is evident that C initially prepared and used the instant consent form I with the Defendant’s normal consent in the course of promoting the non-performance of the instant land E (hereinafter “instant land”).

The defendant also filed a false complaint in an investigative agency, not a forged written consent.

was stated.

② We examine the pledge of this case.

The Defendant asserts in the reasoning of appeal that “Around September 2014, C prepared a written consent through I, without the Defendant’s permission,” that “A written a written oath.”

On the other hand, D, "after surveying the land of this case, the defendant resisted the existing plan for the non-performance of the land of this case, and obtained C.