The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) in the case of damage to documents, it was inevitable to damage the forged document in order to comply with the KA, and in the case of the execution of private document preparation and qualification reproduction, the defendant was entrusted by F, the actual owner of the KAE, and in the case of the execution of the original copy of the process document, the defendant was unilaterally dismissed by the defendant, and the defendant was prepared by F, the actual owner of the KO and C, and the defendant was entrusted by F, the actual owner of the KAF, and the defendant was found guilty of the charge of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

If the written confirmation of confirmation of the determination as to the crime of destroying documents is damaged against the owner's will, even if the written confirmation contains false contents contrary to the truth, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of destroying documents (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1807, Dec. 28, 1982). The defendant asserted that the crime of destroying documents was led to confession in the first instance trial and the judgment was made in the first instance trial. In light of the above legal principles, the health class in this case, recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and the following circumstances are acknowledged by the court below. In other words, even if the defendant's assertion is based on the defendant's assertion, the defendant arbitrarily teared the "written contract" owned by the victims without the consent of the victims, regardless of whether the content of the document is true, and it is difficult for F to deem the "written contract of acquiring stocks" made between F and the victims, and the defendant to be false. In light of the degree of participating in the operation of the F and the circumstances leading director, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired stocks in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's objection.