The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) H, I, and J (hereinafter “H, etc.”) delegated the Defendant with the management of property by entrusting his/her seal, and the procedure for filing inheritance reports was also comprehensively delegated after the death of the deceased G. The Defendant consented, explicitly or implicitly, to prepare a lease contract for the instant land in the name of H, etc., inasmuch as they were registered as a lessor of the instant land and were aware of the fact that income tax was imposed, even though they were aware of the fact that they were registered as a lessor of the instant land for a long period of time.

The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, H, etc., state that there is no authority to consistently delegate the authority to prepare a lease agreement from the investigative agency to the lower court, and there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of each of the above statements. The Defendant was comprehensively delegated the procedure for reporting inheritance after the deceased G death, and the Defendant drafted a self-employed contract on April 14, 1997.

I, one of the arguments, H, and I refused to affix the seal to the lease agreement, opposed to the inheritance of the obligation to return the deposit equivalent to the inheritance shares.

In relation to the sale and purchase of other inherited property, the above H et al. stated that the seal imprint certificate and the seal imprint certificate were issued to the defendant, while the above lease contract was affixed with the seal imprint seal affixed to H et al., and the defendant appears to have not paid the profits from the lease of the land in this case to H et al. In particular, in the case of the lease contract on February 27, 2009 and the lease contract on March 10, 2015, if the lease deposit was increased to KRW 660,000 and KRW 860,000,000,000, the increased lease deposit for H et al. was not paid to H et al.