The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is between husband and wife of the instant facts charged. A.

On February 2, 2013, the Defendant forged a letter of consent to the collection and use of personal (credit) information inquiry consent to obtain corporate credit loans at a point E of an enterprise bank, indicating “V” as if he/she consents in the column of the unique distinctive information consent consent, and forging a letter of consent to the personal (credit) information inquiry by voluntarily entering “F” and “G” in the resident number column without the authority of “G” in the resident number column.

B. On February 22, 2013, the Defendant submitted to H a written consent for inquiry of personal (credit) information forged as referred to in the foregoing paragraph (a) (hereinafter referred to as “instant written consent”), and used the said written consent.

2. Since the defendant and his defense counsel asserted D gave the defendant consent to the preparation of the written consent of this case, the crime of forging private documents is not established.

3. The crime of forgery or alteration of a private document refers to the preparation of a document in the name of another by a person who is not authorized to prepare and alter the private document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do183, Feb. 24, 1998; 97Do183, Feb. 24, 1998; 2002Do235, May 30, 2003; 2002Do235, May 30, 2003). Thus, the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document is not established if the title holder explicitly or implicitly consented to the preparation and alteration of the private document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do183, Feb. 24, 1998).