The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on November 30, 2012, when preparing a loan application at the office of SIland (hereinafter “SIland”), and the Defendant refused to produce a seal similar to the F’s seal imprint without the F’s seal imprint, which is the nominal holder of the loan application, and found the Defendant guilty of the charge of forging the F’s seal imprint and exercising the same for the purpose of exercising the loan promptly.

Furthermore, the court below rejected the above assertion on the Defendant’s assertion that the seal was made with permission of E, on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant received the consent from F, and that even if the Defendant received the consent from E, it is difficult to deem that E was delegated with the authority to purchase used cars, the Defendant does not have the authority to create the F’s seal imprint, and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that E was not authorized to make the seal imprint by planning and gathering the instant crime in advance with E, and that E was not authorized to make the seal imprint from F.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The crime of forging a private seal under Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Code is established when the seal of a third person is forged without authority for the purpose of illegally exercising the seal against the will of the third person. Therefore, if the seal of a third person is forged with the explicit or implied consent or delegation from the third person at the time of excluding the seal of the third person, the crime of forging

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the defendant, in collusion with E, K, and L, was employed by the defendant as a disguised broker in the used cars sales company.