The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were in the state that D received a written waiver from H at the time of preparing the instant lease agreement, the Defendant thought that D had obtained I’s consent on the preparation of the lease agreement, the nominal owner, and the Defendant did not have any intention to do so.

In addition, I's implied or presumed consent on the preparation of the above lease contract should be considered to have existed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) As the crime of forging a private document refers to the preparation of a document by a person who is not authorized to make a document in the name of another person, the crime of forging a private document does not constitute the crime of forging a private document if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented in preparing and amending the private document. Meanwhile, even though the nominal owner did not have the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act in full view of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the case presumed to have naturally accepted the document does not constitute the crime of forging a private document. However, if the nominal owner knew that there was no explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be readily concluded that the consent was presumed

(2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had intentionally committed an intentional act regarding the forgery and use of the instant lease agreement. In so doing, I, the nominal owner, as the above circumstances.