사문서위조등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) is prepared by the defendant in the name of C's president within the scope permitted by C's C's management director D of the Korea A's Association of D's members of the Korea D's Association of D's Association (hereinafter "C's members"). Even if the defendant prepared the statement of this case beyond the scope, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had prepared the document of this case with intent to forge the private document and use the document of this case, so the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous
2. Determination
A. The crime of forging a private document is established by a person without the authority to prepare the document using the name of another person. The act of forging a private document constitutes the crime of forging a private document, in violation of the intent of the nominal owner, by stating the delegated authority in early and in the name of another person, even if entrusted with the preparation of the document in its name.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do690 Decided June 28, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 96Do3191 Decided March 28, 1997, etc.). (b)
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, D is also in charge of management while working as a clinical sergeant of C from January 16, 2012 to November 201, 2012. D around September 2012, the Defendant sought D and requested D to “only if it is reported to a public health clinic, so that D can perform preventive vaccination under the name of C in the Incheon Bupyeong-gu area.” D accepted the above request of the Defendant; D instructed the head of C to put it out to the Defendant by placing the official seal of the head of C in blank; the Defendant stored the blank with the official seal of the head of C; and prepared documents in the name of the president of C to submit it to the apartment management office or the public health clinic using it; and on October 1, 2012, the Defendant: < Amended by Act No. 11403, Oct. 1, 2012>