The judgment below

Of them, it is about the forgery of securities, the uttering of forged securities, the fabrication of private documents, and the uttering of falsified documents.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal as to forging securities and exercising forged securities.

(1) Since the subject to which the intention or concept expressed in a document prepared by the representative director of a corporation in the manner of indicating his/her representative qualification belongs is not the representative director, the nominal owner of the document shall be deemed the corporation.

Therefore, whether the above act of preparing a document constitutes the above Article shall be determined by whether the originator has the authority to lawfully prepare a document in the name of the corporation, and it shall not be determined by whether the document was delegated or consented by the person who is marked as the representative director with respect to the preparation of the document.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7836 Decided December 24, 2008). The legitimate representative director of the original stock company is entitled to all judicial or extra-judicial acts in relation to the company’s business, and thus, the representative director’s act of directly preparing documents in the name of the company does not fall under the preparation of qualification documents or the above Article.

The same shall apply where the content of the document is made in a false manner contrary to the truth or in order to promote the interest of himself or a third party by abusing the power of representation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1040 Decided May 13, 2010). Such a legal doctrine applies likewise to cases where a representative director of a stock company prepares securities, such as promissory notes, in a manner that indicates his/her representative qualification.

The summary of this part of the indictment is as follows.

On July 2, 2012, the Defendant newly appointed as the joint representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) on or around July 2, 2012, according to the I’s proposal, in order to secure the claim for G with respect to which H and the dispute occurred due to the remainder of the transfer proceeds, the Defendant sent his corporate seal impression and a certificate of seal impression to G Co., Ltd. through L, an employee, to issue promissory notes in the name of G and received notarial deeds.

2.3.