The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances revealed in the record on the gist of the reasons for appeal, the name of the lease contract (the next person) did not inform the lessor of the difference between the actual place of residence and the indication on the lease contract. In the absence of measures such as securing preferential repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the Defendant’s consent to arbitrarily change the “real estate indication” column of the lease contract cannot be deemed as a matter of course.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the premise of the presumption of the nominal person's consent is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. The lower court determined, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, that ① the Defendant, the owner of a multi-household housing (total of 8 households, 101-104, 201-204, 204) located in Do Government-si, entered into a lease agreement with D’s husband F around 2003, on the premise that the number of units of the lease agreement is 101 units due to mistake because the number of units is not indicated in the house door; ② the F and D resided in 102 units after the conclusion of the lease agreement; ③ the Defendant died; ③ the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D on February 15, 201 and 102 to change the number of units of the lease agreement to 10 units of the lease agreement; ④ the Defendant provided a copy of the appraisal and assessment agreement with each lessee on the basis of the following facts: