The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) Each of the facts charged of this case is premised on the fact that the defendant was not the representative of the C clan (hereinafter "the clan of this case"). The judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of each of the facts charged of this case on July 4, 2010 was confirmed on March 14, 2007 that the resolution of the Cheongju District Court 2010 decided on March 14, 2007 at the general assembly of the clan of this case was null and void through a lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of special general assembly among the Class 269 (see, e.g., 85 pages of the investigation records). Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of each of the facts charged of this case on different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The Defendant received advice from an attorney-at-law who is a legal expert to the effect that “the Defendant has the authority to conclude a sales contract or to prepare and deliver a written consent for land use,” and that the Defendant still maintains the status of the representative of the clan of this case.

Since the act of preparing documents, such as the entries in the remaining facts charged, this constitutes “when there is a justifiable reason to believe that the act was not a crime under the law” under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the charges of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was a valid ratification of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant ratified the resolution on March 14, 2007, which elected the Defendant as the representative of the said clan at the extraordinary general meeting of the instant clan held on July 4, 2010.

However, on July 4, 2010, when the defendant submitted, the minutes of the special general meeting (see, e.g., e., 19 pages of the investigation records).