The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is a deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”)’s child, and the Defendant was granted comprehensive delegation or proxy authority for the post-management of property before his/her birth. Therefore, the crime of forging private documents and preparing qualification-based private documents is not established.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of forging documents is established when a private document prepared for the purpose of uttering is in the form and appearance to the public to believe that it is a document prepared within the authority of the holder of the title deed. As long as the above requirements are met, even if the holder of the title deed died before the date of preparation of the document, such a document is likely to impair the public good (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Do18, Feb. 24, 2005). Considering that it is necessary to protect the public good’s credit in relation to the private document in the name of the deceased person, the crime of forging documents is established, considering that the document’s existence is an important part of the document, even if the document’s name was already dead, or that the document was prepared on the premise that it would be prejudicial to the public good, and thus, the court below’s determination that the document would be lawfully established by the evidence of the owner is not acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do21961, Feb. 29, 219, 2019).