The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The facts charged on the preparation of a private document and the display of a private document prepared for qualification to the defendant are as follows.

On May 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) to purchase KRW 6,750,000,000 for the purchase price with respect to the officetel owned by D, but the Defendant agreed to sell the officetel on behalf of the Defendant due to the failure to pay the purchase price.

For the above reasons, the Defendant merely held the authority to vicariously sell an officetel, and even if it does not have the authority to rent the officetel without D’s consent, the Defendant prepared a lease contract under the name of the company “E” created by D for the sales business, and used it to receive money from the lessee for the purpose of deposit and monthly rent.

On October 6, 2014, the Defendant, without authority, entered the lease contract with the lessee J-J for the purpose of exercising the lease contract with the said officetel 1103, and drafted a chapter “E” in the name of “E” (hereinafter “the lease contract of this case”) under the name of the lessor, which is a private document, in the column for lease of the “real estate lease agreement” stored in the office computer, “103,” “payment of KRW 50,000,000,000” in the deposit column, “corporate registration number: G, telephone: H, name, E (A), and J’s personal information in the lessor column, and printed out the said contract by affixing his/her seal on the lessor’s name.

The Defendant continued to use the lease contract of this case, which was concluded with the lessee J who is unaware of the fact that the lease contract of this case was duly formed.

2. The lower court rendered a judgment of the first instance that acquitted this part of the facts charged on the following grounds.