사인위조등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to have no fact that C had a seal affixed to the Defendant. The instant contract is a contract in fact favorable to the Defendant, and there is no reason to allow C to have the seal affixed to such contract.
The defendant, without the explicit or implied consent of C, has affixed C’s seal and affixed C’s seal to the contract of this case. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that there is reasonable doubt to deem that C implicitly consented to the rejection of the seal of the Defendant, or that at least there is a reasonable doubt to deem that C had an intentional intent to commit the crime of the seal forgery and uttering, by misunderstanding that C had implied consent of C, by taking account of the circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.
In light of the above circumstances cited by the prosecutor, there is considerable doubt that the defendant was aware of the seal without C’s explicit consent and affixed the seal on the instant contract (as of May 27, 2015).
However, the instant contract is a document to determine the rights and obligations between the above two parties in relation to the holding and progress of the two parties, which is held and held by the incorporated association D and H (the defendant in fact). Even if the seals of C are affixed on the side of the statement "C: Chairperson of the Organization C", even if the seals of C are affixed, it becomes binding upon C.
The contract of this case does not appear to affect the other agreement between the defendant and C, and the contract of this case is B.