The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 20, 2008, the Defendant, at the time of entering into a cargo vehicle management contract with D around May 20, 2008, explains in advance that the Defendant may prepare and use a loan certificate in order to recover the expenses for entrusted management, taxes, penalties, etc. in a timely manner if he/she fails to pay the expenses for entrusted management, taxes, penalties, etc., to D at the time of entering into the cargo vehicle management contract with D, and obtains the seal imprintd and E’s seal imprint affixed to the blank document.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act of forging a private document or uttering of an investigative document is not established, since the Defendant, with the comprehensive delegation from D on the business related to vehicles for which consent or assignment was obtained, prepared a loan certificate in the name of D or E (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”).

As to the attempted fraud, insofar as the Defendant had a claim against the victim D, such as entrusted management expenses, etc., the mere legal evaluation may be completed and the claim for the loan shall not be deemed to constitute a crime of fraud.

B. When taking into account the various circumstances of the Defendant’s imposition of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too heavy.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 및 법리오해 주장에 관한 판단 ⑴ 사문서위조 및 위조사문서행사의 점에 관하여 ㈎ 작성명의자의 날인이 정당하게 성립된 사문서라고 하더라도 그 내용을 기재할 정당한 권한이 없는 자가 그 내용을 기재하거나 또는 그 권한을 위임받은 자가 그 권한을 초과하여 내용을 기재함으로써 그 날인자의 의사에 반하는 사문서를 작성한 경우에는 사문서위조죄가 성립한다

(대법원 1992. 12. 22. 선고 92도2047 판결 등 참조). ㈏ 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정 즉, ① 피고인은 2008. 5. 20.경 D과 화물차 위탁관리계약을 체결하는 과정에서 D과 E의 인감도장이 날인된 백지 문서를...