The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Fact-misunderstanding 1) The H delegated the Defendant to prepare a mechanic loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant machine loan certificate”) on the grounds that the use of a forged private document or a falsified document was forged on the ground that H consenteds to the borrowing of the instant machine loan certificate.

Therefore, there is no fact that the above investigation document was used.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) The charge of intrusion on a structure (the grounds of appeal and the submission period) the Defendant entered the instant structure with the implied consent of the victim D without committing a crime of intrusion on a structure. Therefore, the crime of intrusion on a structure is not established, or the illegality as a justifiable act is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the facts charged by the court below, which led to the trial of the court below, and applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment as stated in the facts charged by the court below. Since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since it was modified by this court's permission.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, which is examined below, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) The Defendant and the defense counsel at the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal as above, and the lower court’s determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel at the lower court’s judgment on the grounds of “judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel.”