The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, fabrication of private documents.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A prosecutor: The Defendant, without explicit or implied consent or delegation by C, forged the minutes of the board of directors in the name of C, submitted them to the public official in charge, and thereby entered and preserved the fact that a new director was appointed in the corporate register of the medical corporation D (hereinafter “D”) in the corporate register of the corporation’s computerized information system, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant as to the charge of forging private documents, uttering of the investigation documents, fraudulent entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed, and the use of the authentic copy of the authentic deed, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affected the conclusion of

Defendant: The Defendant was not present at the board of directors due to the fact-finding that misunderstanding of facts B did not properly decide on the facts and legal relations regarding whether he was present at the board of directors, and the Defendant did not have the intention of perjury because he responded to “B was not present at the board of directors and his memory is unclear.”

Nevertheless, the lower court found guilty of perjury among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

On August 28, 2018, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio requested the amendment of the indictment to add the ancillary facts to the facts charged in relation to the false entry of the original of the notarial deed and the exercise of the original of the notarial deed. On August 31, 2018, this court permitted the amendment on August 31, 2018. ② On April 4, 2019, he/she applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that he/she responded to the question whether the Defendant participated in the board of directors in relation to perjury among the facts charged in this case.