The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A fine of two million won shall be imposed on a defendant.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant had given sufficient explanation to the mandator and sought consent, it is difficult to view that the document was modified since the instant supplementary document was attached to the power of attorney.

B. Legal principles have attached a separate document without the consent of the mandators.

Even if there is no difference between the original power of attorney and the original power of attorney, and it is only the degree of self-help revision, so it cannot be said that it has been modified.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the crime of altering the private document and the crime of uttering of the altered private document in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the punishment shall be determined within the scope of the term of punishment with heavy concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. However, the court below erred by omitting heavy concurrent crimes.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court. ① The Defendant, with the consent of all 14 clients of this case, prepared a letter of delegation with the consent of all 14 clients of this case, and additionally prepared a separate document in the process of obtaining authentication, and the 8 mandators residing in LBD directly explained the contents of the separate document, and six mandators residing in other land (the Appellant of this case is the complainant of this case).

I first explain the content to Q, which is the representative, and then sought the rest of the mandators' consent, so I argued that I added a separate document with the consent of the mandators. However, Q et al.