The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the preparation of a false document and a letter of intent in the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant was granted the right to manage 10-dong 1003, Songpa-gu Seoul apartment house 1003 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from E, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have misappropriated the qualification of E’s agent.

In addition, the lease contract prepared is merely the nature of the loan certificate, not the actual lease contract, but only the owner indicating E as the lessor, and it does not mean that it leases the apartment of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the defendant formed a lease contract for the apartment of this case with the recognition of the agent qualification of E, is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

As to the crime of occupational breach of trust in the judgment, the Defendant cannot be deemed as a person who administers the lessee’s business, and as long as the lessee received a receipt from the lessor in full and used the leased object, the lessee fulfilled his/her duty. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the preparation of a private document for qualification and the crime of gambling, the Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court. The lower court, which is recognized by the evidence as follows, can reside in the above F apartment, which is the leased object, until the leased object is returned. As such, the lower court was prepared with a view to securing the Defendant’s obligation to borrow the leased object and actually residing therein, and was drafted the first lease agreement.