The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal principles 1) The registration of ownership in the name of F clan (hereinafter “the instant clan”) with respect to the use of false documents, which referred to the representative of the instant clan, has been null and void, since the G, who originally referred to as the representative of the instant clan, has succeeded to the ownership of the instant land as the owner of AM and the co-defendant A, who is the Defendant and A, succeeded to the instant land, to recover the ownership of the instant land and to cooperate in the development project of the YA, and the Defendant prepared and used various documents by gathering the qualification of the representative of the instant clan, which is also known to the fact that the head of the Si/Gun, the party who was the party to the instant events, was also aware of this fact, and that the instant clan was not the head of the Si/Gun.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be established as a crime of preparing a private document and a private document prepared for qualification, and the defendant did not have the intention.

In addition, the above actions by the defendant are justified as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the preparation of a private document and the use of a private document prepared for qualification as a defendant was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts.

2) Since the Defendant was the owner of the instant land together with A, there was no intention to obtain the said compensation by fraud.

In addition, as the defendant and A knew that they are the owners of the land of this case, they accepted the land of this case in consultation with the co-defendant B of the court below for the development project even though they knew that they are the owners of the land of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant as to the fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(b).