The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to register the change of representative director, the Defendant is the representative director who was used by K as the complainant under the direction of J as a legitimate representative director at the time of registration of the change of representative director (hereinafter “the corporate seal impression of this case”).

2) The minutes of the board of directors of this case (hereinafter “the minutes of this case”) shall be delivered.

) The Statement and the Statement (hereinafter referred to as “instant Statement”) together with the Minutes and the Statement refers to “each of the instant documents”.

As the seal is affixed to the company, there is no intention of forging and uttering private document. 2) The defendant has the authority to prepare the minutes of the board of directors, and under comprehensive delegation, the representative director's seal has been affixed to the company, and as long as K returns the corporate seal of this case to the company, it is delegated to the company with the authority to affix the seal of the corporate seal of this case, and thus, it does not constitute an infringement of private document since K puts the corporate seal of this case upon implied or presumed consent of K.

3) The title holder of the minutes of this case shall be H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

(4) The minutes and written statements of this case are used by R, and the Defendant did not use the said documents, even if they were affixed without the approval of the board of directors, since they did not constitute a crime of forging a private document, and the minutes are irrelevant to the contents of the resolution of the board of directors, the agenda items, etc., and they are irrelevant to the seal. Therefore, even if the name of K was written and the seal of this case was affixed next to it, the document’s probative value is not small and medium.

5) Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of each of the instant facts charged is erroneous as above. B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.