The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,00, and by a fine of KRW 300,000.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that Defendant A instructed Defendant B to deliver to Defendant B a written answer in the name of E through Defendant B was premised on obtaining permission from E.

In addition, Defendant B was aware that D obtained permission from E and drafted a reply and power of attorney in the name of E.

Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a document forged ex officio is delivered and exercised en bloc, the crime of uttering of forged documents is established as much as the number of documents. The crime of uttering of falsified documents constitutes a crime of commercial concurrence

(See Supreme Court Decision 4289Do188 delivered on September 7, 1956). Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the fact that the Defendants conspired with D to exercise one copy of the forged E’s response and one power of attorney was held en bloc.

However, the court below erred in holding the above crimes of uttering of each of the above investigation documents as crimes of concurrent crimes, not the relation of regular concurrent crimes, but the relation of substantive concurrent crimes.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable and there is no error of mistake of facts.

D At an investigative agency, upon receiving the direction of Defendant A to bring a reply in the name of E in the court, D submitted to Defendant B the power of attorney in the name of E and a written response.

Defendant

A has not yet obtained permission of E, and later, in the event of the problem of forging private documents, the question is how it will be followed, and the above defendant is hot, and it is a lot of people.