사문서위조등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts that the person who prepared the summary of the grounds for appeal and the title holder of a forged document knew of the fact that he was not the same person, does not affect the establishment of the crime of forging documents, and even if the defendant did not obtain specific delegation from D concerning the total sales contract, he forged the name of D and forged the instant sales contract, but did not contain any errors of mistake or of misapprehending legal principles.
2. Judgment on the primary facts charged
A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the primary charge that the Defendant forged the instant sales contract under the name of representative director D, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and used the forged contract to L, on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant misrepresented the identity with D, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant forged the said contract, and therefore, even if it exercised the said contract, it cannot be deemed that it exercised the forged document, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it exercised the forged document, and thus, the facts charged in this part constitutes a case where it does not constitute a crime under the former part of Article 325 of the
B. (1) The prosecutor changed the indictment to the indictment at the time of the trial, and applied for the amendment of the indictment with regard to the amendment of the indictment with regard to the primary facts charged in the instant case as follows. The subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission.
(2) The summary of the revised facts charged was the representative director of C in the name of the company from December 21, 2006 to September 15, 201, and was the major shareholder who held 312,000 shares of E (total 42.27%) operated by D in the name of the company.
(A) On June 29, 2010, the Defendant: (a) disposed of the E shares held in the name of “C” to F and did not constitute a major shareholder of E; and (b) the Defendant, who is the representative director of E, has the authority to enter into a sales agency contract with the five of the five of the East Asia.