[2] Whether the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document is established where the consent or the consent of the holder of the document is obtained or presumed (negative), and whether the consent can be presumed simply by a vague expectation or prediction about the consent of the holder of the document (negative)

[3] In a case where the defendant was prosecuted for using a copy of a bankbook as evidence after printing and copying the name of the depositor on a specific date among the contents of the deposit passbook in the defendant's name of the bank issuing Gap bank without authority, and submitting it to the court for use as evidence, the case holding that the judgment below which found the defendant not guilty was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the alteration of private documents and the uttering of the passbook

[2] Since the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document refers to the preparation by a person without the authority to prepare a document using another person's name, if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented to the preparation or alteration of the private document, it does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. Meanwhile, even if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act without the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, in full view of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the case presumed to have been accepted as a matter of course does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. However, even if the nominal owner knew of the fact that there was no explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be concluded that the consent was presumed to have been obtained only by means of expectation or prediction

[3] In a case where the defendant was prosecuted for the purpose of exercising his authority by removing and reproducing part of the depositee of monthly benefit received from Eul corporation from the defendant corporation on a specific date among the contents of the deposit passbook in the name of the defendant of the defendant of the bank issuance of Gap bank without authority, and then submitting as evidence the copy of the passbook to the court and using it as evidence, the case holding that the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the alteration of the document and the uttering of the document, since the new probative value of receiving benefits from Eul corporation from May 25, 2006 was small and medium, and since the head of the bank Gap, who is the nominal owner of the passbook Gap, knew of such fact at the time of the act, it cannot be deemed that the consent was naturally accepted if he did not change the document and submitted it as evidence, it cannot be deemed that there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the alteration of the document and the uttering of the document.

1. The crime of altering private documents is established when there is a risk of undermining public credibility by causing a person without authority to change the content of a document in the name of another person that has already been authenticly formed to the extent that the identity would not be undermined. In addition, the crime of forging or altering private documents refers to the preparation of a document in the name of another person by a person who is not authorized to prepare the document. Therefore, if a person without authority gives consent to prepare or modify a private document explicitly or implicitly, it does not constitute the crime of forging or altering private documents. Meanwhile, even though there was no real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act, the crime of forging or altering private documents is presumed not to have been established (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do3101, Mar. 9, 1993; 2002Do235, May 30, 2003).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's entry in the name of the new bank was in office in the non-indicted 1 corporation and 2,694,180 won "the non-indicted 1 corporation" in the name of the new bank "the non-indicted 2 corporation, 26,694,180 won" and created appearance of "the non-indicted 1 corporation" as a emulative tape, but the above acts of the defendant merely bring about a situation where the depositee cannot be identified, and the above acts of the defendant merely bring about a situation where the depositee cannot be identified, and in comparison with the entries of other transactions, the above part of the public book was easily known to anyone whose name is entered in the name of the depositee, and ③ it was recognized that the defendant was in office in the non-indicted 2 corporation with the name of the new head of the passbook for the purpose of exercising the right and duty of the new head of the bank, and it is difficult to recognize that the new part of the defendant's new copy of the passbook was not altered.

3. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the first instance court, the defendant was working for another workplace from April 1, 2006 to 200, and the defendant started to work for the non-indicted 1 corporation from January 26, 2006 to March 31, 2006, with the amount equivalent to 3,80,000 won which was paid before by the complainant company from April 1, 2006, and the amount equivalent to 3,80,000 won which was paid from 20,000 won which was paid to the non-indicted 2 corporation from 60,000,000 won which was paid to the non-indicted 1 corporation from 60,000,000 won which was paid to the non-indicted 2 corporation from 60,000,000 won which was paid to the non-indicted 2 corporation from 60,000,000 won for non-indicted 20,000 won.

In light of the above legal principles, although the defendant received benefits from when the non-indicted 1 corporation was involved in the related civil procedure, it can be deemed that there was a risk of undermining the public trust due to the small probative value of receiving benefits from May 25, 2006 to the non-indicted 1 corporation by printing out and copying the name of the depositor on April 25, 2006, and submitting it as evidence. Meanwhile, in full view of all objective circumstances as seen above, if the new president, who is the nominal owner of the passbook, knew of the fact at the time of the act, he cannot be deemed to have accepted it as a matter of course. The defendant cannot be deemed to have copied the part at issue in the related civil procedure as above, thereby making a copy of the document and submitting it as evidence for the civil procedure, so long as the defendant did not have any intention to alter the private document and to exercise the altered private document.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's above act cannot be deemed to have established new probative value to the extent of undermining public credit due to the defendant's act, and it is presumed that the new president, a joint name, consents, and it is difficult to recognize the defendant's criminal intent for alteration of private document. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of alteration of private document and uttering of private document, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)