The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles did not delegate E the authority to conclude each purchase and sale contract as stated in the judgment below, and there was no power of attorney and certificate of seal impression to E in relation to a sale and sale contract.

In addition, in light of the contents of each sales contract as indicated in the holding of the court below, the relationship of attribution of contractual interest concluded by E, the inconsistency and uncertainty of E’s statement, and the possibility of errors in the appraisal result of the National Scientific Investigation Institute, etc., the facts charged of this case is proven to have been committed.

Although it cannot be seen, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On February 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence for a two-year period of imprisonment due to a crime of breach of trust in the support for the development of the Suwon method, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 12, 2018.

The crime of the judgment of the court below and the crime of the above crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, shall be sentenced to

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is still subject to the judgment of this court. Therefore, this is examined.

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s assertion by the Defendant is not acceptable, since the Defendant filed a false fact as stated in the lower judgment and sufficiently recognized facts E.

1) The Defendant.