The defendant's defense counsel asserted unfair sentencing on November 20, 2017 (Supplementary Statement) for reasons of appeal by the defendant, but this first asserted for the first time after the lapse of the period for appeal, and thus, cannot serve as a legitimate reason for appeal.

Even if ex officio, the sentence of the court below is too excessive and thus it cannot be deemed unfair, the judgment of the court below is not a ground for reversal ex officio.

A. On October 27, 2009, the Defendant’s birth, impliedly consented to the preparation of the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting on October 27, 2009 (hereinafter “Minutes of the board of directors’ meeting”) with respect to the forgery and event of the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting on October 27, 2009. Even if there was no consent or delegation, it is presumed that the Defendant, as a matter of course, consented to the preparation of the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting for the purpose

Nevertheless, the defendant forged the minutes of the board of directors and exercised them.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "the act of forging" in the crime of forging private documents.

Defendant and defense counsel received express consent from H to the preparation of meeting minutes of the board of directors

However, the above argument was withdrawn on the second trial date.

B. On March 21, 2011, H comprehensively delegated the Defendant with the management of D (hereinafter “D”) on the charge of forging and exercising minutes of the ordinary shareholders’ meeting. The preparation of the minutes of the ordinary shareholders’ meeting on March 21, 201 concerning approval of the settlement of accounts and the appointment of auditors (hereinafter “Minutes of the ordinary shareholders’ meeting”) was an act within the scope of consent or delegation granted by H, and even if there was no delegation from H with the authority to prepare them, it is the foregoing.