The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) was delegated by G representative director G of FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) the authority to lease the E building to the extent necessary to exercise the right of retention for the E building and to prepare all expenses for the E building; (b) accordingly, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with K within the reasonable scope of authority; and (c) prepared and exercised documents, such as “written consent to use and lease management of the building.”

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as a building manager, prepared and exercised a lease agreement on No. 601 and No. 602 of the E building as a building manager by using a corporate seal ledger and a corporate card, which is a building manager, under the pretext of preparing documents related to the exercise of the right of retention of the F Credit Group from G, as stated in the instant facts charged, and acquired by deceiving KRW 9.5 million in total on a deposit basis and a rent basis, and forged and used the documents, such as “written consent on the use of the building and on the lease management,” etc.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

1) G consistently states that, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, “Irre himself, as the representative director of F, has the words “it is necessary to make relevant documents in order for the claim group to win in the lien lawsuit,” and consistently stated to the purport that “Irre, as the representative director of F, the Defendant, who is the representative of the bond group composed of the subcontractor, has the corporate identification book and the certificate of personal seal impression issued to the Defendant, and there was no authority for the Defendant to use and lease the E building.” In fact, the Defendant is a corporate identification book from G.