A. In a case where the Defendant issued a corporate card as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “instant corporate card”), with the consent of C to jointly and severally guarantee the relevant card’s obligation, the Defendant prepared a power of attorney (in face No. 42 of the investigation record, hereinafter “the power of attorney”) as of April 9, 2012, and received a seal directly from C on the said power of attorney.

Since then, according to the above delegation, the Defendant only prepared a joint and several surety (hereinafter “instant joint and several surety”) indicated in the facts charged in C in the name of C when applying for membership of the instant corporate card, and did not have any fact that he forged and uses the instant joint and several surety.

B. The punishment of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily prepared the joint and several surety in C’s name without obtaining consent from C and used it after forging it can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

(1) Until the investigation agency and the first instance court, C relatively and consistently state to the effect that “The power of attorney in this case was first examined by the police, and the seal affixed on the said power of attorney was consistent with its own, and there is no consent to the joint and several surety of the corporate card in this case.”

She also asked the defendant about why he was issued a card in his name at the time when he was examined by the police on February 2012 and asked the defendant about why he would be solved by the defendant at the time, and the same day is that C's family will occur.