The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant was delegated by F with respect to the application for disposition by land prices during the construction work, and F’s design is not affixed and sealed by the attorney-at-law.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

① At the lower court’s court, F stated that the Defendant did not have delegated the application to dispose of the land during the construction work, and the Defendant did not have any explanation to the effect that the application to dispose of the land during the construction work is well known, and that “the name will be listed in the name of the representative who will file an application to file an action or file an application for a provisional disposition,” or that there was

(2) There is a special fiduciary relationship as much as the defendant and F can comprehensively delegate the power to file an action or file an application for provisional disposition.

It is difficult to see that the defendant was not individually prepared by F with respect to the application for provisional disposition, and there is no fact that the defendant either notified F of the application or presented the application at the time of preparing the application for provisional disposition.

③ Although the F has signed a document stating “all delegations to A” with respect to the damage lawsuit against C apartment units by an officetel newly constructed in N, the document is deemed not to contain the specific content of the lawsuit, the Defendant is subject to the specific content of the lawsuit and the lawsuit against F at that time.