The Defendant modified the general meeting minutes of the instant association on January 22, 2013 without the consent of the nominal owner.

Judgment

The alteration of a private document is established when a person without authority changes the content of the private document under another person's name to the extent that the identity of the document is not undermined, thereby creating a new probative value.

Therefore, if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented to the modification of a private document, the crime of altering the private document is not established, and if the nominal owner was aware of the fact at the time of the act, the crime of altering the private document is not established even in cases where it is presumed that the nominal owner would have given consent as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 2011). The Defendant obtained consent from all the nominal holders of the minutes prior to the modification of the minutes of the general assembly as of January 22, 2013 of the instant association, prior to the modification of the minutes of the general assembly as of January 22, 2013, the lower court’s decision is justifiable, and

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.