The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the loan certificate and power of attorney of the instant agreement are written directly by C and signed and sealed by C with a seal imprint, and are not a document forged by the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, as to whether the agreement of this case and the power of attorney was directly prepared by C, the statement at C in the court of the court below, the written statement in C (the letter of evidence on the list of evidence) and the evidence duly adopted and examined by C as to whether or not the agreement of this case were directly prepared by C, the loan certificate and the power of attorney can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant was a document prepared without the consent of C, so this part of the defendant

B. (1) As to whether the Defendant’s instant forest land is real estate trusted to C in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant alleged at the investigative agency and the lower court that the instant forest land was real estate trusted to C in the name of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant’s assertion was made to the effect that the instant forest land was real estate trusted to C in the name of the Defendant.

B. The trustee comprehensively allowed the use of his name to the truster in the disposal of the property or exercise of other authority where the property is trusted in the name of the trustee without any burden on the truster of the relevant legal doctrine, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

Since it is reasonable to see that, in preparing documents necessary for the disposal of trust property in the name of the trustee, even if the trustee did not obtain an individual consent from the trustee, the crime of forging and uttering of private documents is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4812, Nov. 30, 2007). Fifth, the following circumstances, i.e., the real estate under the name of the forest in this case, which can be known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to whether the forest in this case was real estate