beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 3,00,000 won, and by a fine of 5,00,000 won.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the real estate lease agreement in the name of lessor D, which was prepared and submitted to the office of the office of the competent Si/Na-si (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) was in the form and appearance to the extent sufficient to believe that the Defendants were the lease agreement created according to the real will of the nominal owner; and (b) even if the Defendants knew that they would be contrary to the intent of the nominal owner D, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who intends to operate a private child-care center by filing an application for authorization of a private child-care center with the Naju-si Office, and the Defendant A is an authorized broker.
Defendant
B entered into a provisional contract for the lease of the E apartment in the Jeju city as a broker of Defendant A, but the above D was aware that Defendant B would try to operate the above apartment as a private childcare center.
In spite of the fact that Defendant B received a prior application for the authorization of a private childcare center at the Naju City Office, Defendant B conspired to forge and submit a real estate lease agreement, which is a document necessary for the prior application with Defendant A.
(1) On February 4, 2016, the Defendants drafted private documents with the title of “real estate lease agreement” using a computer at the G Certified Private Brokerage Office located in F at Naju City on February 4, 2016, and printed out them with the name “Seoul-do Do Do Do Do 406, No. 102 of the 1st century,” the deposit “10,000 won,” the down payment “30,000 won,” the remainder “Gu Do 10,000,000 won,” the address of the lessor’s column “H, 437,” the resident registration number I, and the name “D”.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to act as a private document on the rights and obligations.