사문서위조등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant obtained prior consent from 35 instructors (hereinafter “the instructors of this case”) who are named in the name of the Defendant with respect to the preparation of a letter of commitment to the lecture (hereinafter “certificate of commitment to the lecture of this case”) in Chapter 35 of this case, and there was no intention to commit the crime of forging the private document of this case and uttering of the document of investigation.
Even if there was no prior consent as above, in light of the circumstances at the time of the Defendant’s preparation of the instant commitment, there was a constructive consent of the instant instructors regarding the preparation of the instant commitment.
Therefore, the illegality of the case is excluded.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.
2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below was just in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
(1) The defendant shall, in the name of 81 instructors, offer to submit relevant bidding procedures publicly announced by the official city of official cities, with a view to being able to directly lectures at the official city except in cases of natural disasters and force majeure when attending the operation of the D Act implemented at the official city of official cities.
“Written commitment” (No. 62 No. 62 of the Prosecutor’s Evidence, and No. 257 through 341 of the Evidence Record) with the content of “Written commitment” was drawn up and submitted.
② However, unlike the remaining instructors, 35 instructors of the instant case among the above 81 instructors agree to the Defendant to prepare and submit the “written commitment” of the aforementioned bidding procedure (Evidence No. 23 and 57 of the Prosecutor’s Evidence No. 23 and 57).