All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The offense of forgery of a private document refers to the preparation of a document by a person who is not authorized to prepare the document in the name of another person. Therefore, the offense of forgery of a private document does not constitute the offense of alteration of the private document if the nominal owner has expressed or implied consent in preparing or amending the private document.

Meanwhile, even though there was no real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act by taking account of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the above alteration of the private document does not constitute an offense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do235, May 30, 2003). However, even if the nominal owner knows that there was no explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, if the nominal owner knew of the preparation of the document, it cannot be readily concluded that the failure of the document would have been presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201). The lower court determined that the Defendants guilty of the forgery of the private document and the part of the use of the private investigation (excluding the part on the grounds of innocence) among the facts charged in this case against the Defendants.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the explicit or implied consent, presumption consent, forgery, intentional act, and joint principal offender, etc. of the document in the crime of forging private documents and the crime of copying private documents, or by omitting judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.