A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The crime of forging a private document in relation to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles refers to the preparation of a document by gathering another person’s name without authority. Therefore, if a person without authority to prepare a private document has given the explicit or implied consent of the nominal owner at the time of the preparation of the document, it does not constitute the crime of forging the private document, and on the other hand, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act without the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, in full view of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the crime of forging the private document is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do235, May 30, 2003). In full view of the following facts or circumstances recognized or known by the court below under the evidence duly examined by the court below, it is presumed that the defendant naturally consented if B knew of the fact at the

Therefore, the act of preparing the closure report is not established and the act of submitting the closure report to the employee of the tax office is not established.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

On February 4, 2013, the Defendant registered a business operator under the name of B without his own consent, and started to pay taxes imposed in relation to the operation of the business in the name of B from October 2013 when operating the business.

B became aware of the circumstances in which taxes imposed in its own name are delinquent at the end of 2014.

In order to discontinue the above business, the defendant is to discontinue the business.