The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of a falsified falsified Document, and the seal affixed to the construction contract document stated in the facts charged was confirmed to be genuine. The O entered the special agreement in one of two copies of the above construction contract, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have an obligation to additionally enter the special agreement in the remaining one part, and even if the defendant did not enter the special agreement in the above construction contract, it shall not be deemed to fall under the above Article as referred to in the crime of forging documents.

B. misunderstanding of facts as to fraud, misunderstanding of legal principles, 1) With respect to deception: The Defendant is a limited partnership E and the H Corporation F received from G (hereinafter “instant construction”).

2) On the part of the Defendant, the Defendant did not have any intention to deceive the victim because it was actually believed that the instant construction would soon take place. However, the Defendant did not have any intention to deceive the victim because it did not have any intention to deceive the victim.

2. Determination

A. The term “the forgery of a document to determine the misunderstanding of facts as to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a private document or the misapprehension of legal principles refers to the preparation of a document under the name of a person who has no authority to prepare it. Therefore, in preparing a private document, if there is an explicit or implied consent or delegation by the nominal owner, it cannot be deemed to constitute an offense of forging a private document. However, even if the authority to prepare a document is delegated, if the document is prepared by the delegated person with the authority to prepare it, the crime of forging a private document is established.

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6088 Decided October 28, 2005 and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6088 Decided June 28, 2012