The defendant prepared a written contract with D and B related to the progress of an incorporated association, and thought C's seal to be forged and used.

Around May 27, 2015, the Defendant forged one seal in the name of the said C for the purpose of using it in the contract with D, an incorporated association, in the painting manufacturer in the Seoul Jung-gu E building.

B. On May 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) drafted a contract in relation to the progress with B office located in the Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) signed a forged C seal as prescribed in paragraph (1) by the Chairperson of the Organization C at the end of the contract; (c) affixed it to F and G, who are aware of the fact, affixed a true seal.

2. In light of the fact that Determination C consistently stated that the Defendant did not allow the view of the seal affixed to the Defendant, and that it was demanded by the incorporated association D to conclude a direct contract, and the criminal records of the Defendant regarding the crime of forging private documents, etc., there is considerable doubt as to whether the Defendant was not committing each of the crimes of this case.

However, the crime of forging a private seal under Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person forges another person’s seal without authority for the purpose of illegally exercising his/her authority against the will of his/her nominal holder. Thus, the crime of forging a seal does not constitute the crime of forging a seal if he/she obtained the explicit or implied consent or delegation from his/her nominal holder at the time of excluding the seal of another (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9213, Sept. 26, 2014). In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt in a criminal trial is proven to have probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true