The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant prepared a total contract for the purpose of applying for the permission of sanitation administration in China with the permission of D D D Limited Corporation at the time of the week; and (b) the Defendant was well aware that F Cosmetics L, the other party to the contract, is not the representative director of D D Limited Corporation; and (c) thus, the Defendant was aware that he was not the other party to the contract, so the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The offense of preparing a private document by means of qualification shall be established by drawing up a document concerning rights, duties, or certification of facts with the qualification of another person for the purpose of exercising the right, and the “purpose of uttering” refers to the purpose of causing another person to mispercing that document was prepared on the basis of legitimate authority. Thus, if a person who prepares a private document recognizes and uses a qualification as another person’s agent or representative and prepares a private document for the purpose of using it as a genuine document for any utility, it shall be deemed that the purpose of uttering of the offense of preparing a private document by means of qualification shall be deemed to have been intentional.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2330, Jul. 27, 2007).

Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged by the court below, ① the Hanju-si Corporation is a Chinese grown-si corporation located for the main purpose of communication, hand-on, cellphone electric sales, etc., and the defendant was registered as the representative of the Chinese E, and thus, the defendant was well aware that he is not the representative director of the said limited company, and ② the defendant is the complainant, the representative director of the said limited company, E or the limited company, who holds the shares of the said limited company.