The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not forge a real estate sales contract in the name of 5 lots of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) such as the Incheon po-gun, E, F, G, H, I, and I (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and a power of attorney as stated in the facts charged, with respect to the forgery of private documents, the uttering of a falsified private document, the fraudulent entry of the authentic copy of a authentic deed, and the uttering of the authentic copy of a authentic deed, as indicated in this part of the facts charged. Furthermore, the Defendant did not have any forgery of a real estate sales contract in the name of Ba-gun, Incheon po-gun, F, G, H, I, and I (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). Furthermore, when filing an application for ownership transfer registration of the instant

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged as to the forgery of private documents, the uttering of private documents, the fraudulent entry of the original of the notarial deed, and the exercise of the original of the notarial deed. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to embezzlement, the Defendant’s use of KRW 17,802,00 for road compensation for the land of the Incheon Cheongjin-gun, Incheon, Incheon, which was approved by C with the permission of C, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have embezzled KRW 4,802,00 among the above road compensation as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below pronounced guilty of the facts charged of embezzlement against the defendant. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the forgery of private documents, the uttering of a private document, the fraudulent entry of the original of a notarial deed, and the uttering of the original of a notarial deed, the Defendant, at the time of the preparation of the instant real estate sales contract, visited the office of a judicial scrivener with the Defendant and C to prepare the instant real estate sales contract.