사문서위조등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal is that C comprehensively delegates a contract for private construction (hereinafter “instant contract”) with D around August 2012, with the consent, explicitly and explicitly, from the end of that time, around August 2012, the Defendant drafted a standard form of contract for private construction (hereinafter “instant contract”). It does not forge the instant contract.
2. Following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the grounds for appeal: (i) the seal affixed to the contract of this case is not C; (ii) the defendant was delegated by C to handle the affairs of the public office related to the construction project; and (iii) the defendant stated by the police that he was affixed the seal attached to the contract of this case to process it (Evidence 38 pages); (iv) even if the defendant was delegated by C to handle the affairs of the public office, the preparation of the contract of this case is not directly related to the affairs of the public office; and (v) it is difficult to view that the contract of this case is within the scope of business delegated by C because it is a contract between private persons who generated rights and obligations with D; (iii) the defendant did not obtain permission from C before preparing the contract of this case (Evidence 38 pages); (iv) the defendant reversed the tax invoice of this case with C as the addressee; and (iii) the defendant, notwithstanding the contract of this case, deemed the defendant not a party to the contract of this case as a party to the contract of this case; (v) the defendant and 121 of this case's agreement.