The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the primary facts charged (i.e., fabrication of private documents and uttering of private investigation documents to the effect that the Defendant is a principal offender who directly committed the commission of the crime) among the facts charged in the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty of the ancillary facts charged (i.e., fabrication of private documents and uttering of private investigation documents to the effect that the Defendant is an indirect criminal who had the knowledge of the fact that the Defendant committed the commission of the commission

In this case, only the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with the principle of no appeal. However, although the part of acquittal in the above reasons is judged in the court of appeal along with the part of conviction in accordance with the principle of no appeal, it has already been separated from the object of an attack and defense between the parties, so the court of first instance does not re-determine the part of acquittal in the above reasons with the judgment of the court below to follow the judgment of the court below

2. A summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) around March 2014, the Defendant received a comprehensive delegation from H to the authority to file a report on the change of the name of H’s shares by acquiring all the management rights and shares of H; (b) based on its authority, requested the tax accounting office to file a report on the change of shares; and (c) issued a written contract for the transfer of shares in the name of H in which the transferee is in blank; (d) upon filing the said report with the tax accounting office, the Defendant prepared a tax base return on securities transaction tax in the name of H, which is a document necessary to believe that H was delegated by the tax accounting office; and (e) filed a tax office to supplement the blank portion of the said written contract for the transfer of shares; and (e) the Defendant

Since there was no knowledge of the circumstances that were prepared and submitted in the above reporting process, the defendant did not have intention to forge the private document and to exercise the private document.