The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts as to fraud and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the instant unauthorized building 1) The instant unauthorized building had existed since 1981 and E and N lawfully donated the said unauthorized building from the Defendant. Therefore, the administrative litigation for verifying the status of members between E and N and the instant association (Seoul Administrative Court No. 2015Guhap4709, hereinafter “instant administrative litigation”).

(2) Even if a forged lease contract was not submitted, the result of the above administrative litigation seems to have been the same. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. (2) In addition, the nature of the crime of fraud in litigation should be determined with strict requirements by considering the right to trial, etc., and this is more so in the case of administrative litigation

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's submission of the lease contract of this case as a means of exercise of rights.

B. The administrative litigation of this case on mistake of facts regarding attempted occupational breach of trust was processed in accordance with the procedure for responding to the litigation ordinarily conducted by the partnership, and the submission of the agenda item to the board of directors on the allocation of reserved land was legitimate, and the defendant did not intentionally conceal or distort the matter in the process.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty on different premise is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the fraud.

As to this, the lower court is legitimate.