A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) As to the crime of forging a private document and uttering of a private document, the Defendant was delegated from other members with the authority to prepare the minutes of the general meeting of employees through a resolution of the general meeting, the withdrawal of delegation shall also be made by the method

Therefore, as long as the delegation to the defendant is not legally withdrawn, the defendant prepared the minutes of this case within the scope of the delegated authority, so the defendant does not constitute the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering private documents.

B) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the Defendant is a limited company B (hereinafter “instant company”).

(C) As to the crime of occupational breach of trust, the Defendant made a payment by subrogation and received a refund from the instant company in order to return the sales price of the AL to the Defendant’s account, and used money only for personal purposes. According to the accounting appraisal result, etc., the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain unjust enrichment.

The Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 100 million and used it for the operation of the corporation, and did not use it for personal purposes, and thus, the Defendant did not incur property damage to the instant company or did not benefit therefrom.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor’s (an unjust judgment of the lower court)’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the fabrication of private documents and the uttering of private documents