사문서위조등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);
A. Since M, the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), who is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant company”) comprehensively delegated his/her business to the Defendant, consented to the preparation of the power of attorney on February 8, 2012 (hereinafter “the power of attorney”), the Defendant’s act of drawing up the instant power of attorney does not constitute the crime of forging private documents and uttering of private documents, but did not constitute the crime of forging private documents and uttering of private documents, and the Defendant did not have the intent to forge private documents and use private documents, and is also dismissed.
B. In fact, there was a fact that the board of directors of the instant company was held on February 13, 2012 in the event of any false entry into public electronic records, etc. and any false entry into public electronic records, etc., and there was a fact that the board of directors of the instant company was held on or around February 13, 2012. Thus, even if such entry was mistakenly entered and any defect was found in the procedure, the act of applying for registration of change based on the resolution made by
C. One document envelope brought by the Defendant to the thief is not owned by Q but owned by the company of this case. The Defendant brought the above document envelope, which is owned by the company of this case, to prevent unlawful registration of dismissal with G where the representative director of the company of this case was the company of this case. Thus, the Defendant did not have the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. Even if the crime of larceny was established, it is not contrary to the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Even if a legitimate representative director of a stock company is a legitimate representative director of one corporation, the authority of forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified documents is not allowed to allow another person to perform the business of the representative director.
Therefore, the representative director is delegated the exercise of authority comprehensively.