A. In relation to Defendant 1’s written confirmation of the use of daily human resources in the name of E, the Defendant reported the current status of providing human resources by telephone to E and signed E after receiving instructions from E, and accordingly, the Defendant did not forge the written confirmation of the use of daily human resources in the name of E.

B) In relation to the F’s confirmation document, the Defendant signed the F’s letter of confirmation without intent to forge the private document and use the falsified document on the premise of F’s constructive consent, and the F submitted it in the process of litigation unless the Defendant forged the F’s certificate of daily human resources use under the F’s name and the F’s confirmation document under the F’s name, as supporting the F’s statement in the lower court that “if the Defendant consented to the Defendant’s signature on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the said written confirmation, if the talked about the situation from the Defendant G properly.”

However, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged of the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of all the sentencing conditions of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all of the sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of all objective circumstances at the time of the act of determining the facts regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act, the crime of forging private documents is not established, but if the nominal owner knew of the fact that there was no explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, he/she would have accepted the document preparation.