The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On September 27, 2009, the Defendant, without authority, stated in the transferor’s column that “F” was transferred to the transferee of the claim for construction price of KRW 983,00,000 to the debtor I corporation of the company E, a limited liability company E, a private document attached to the transferor’s seal imprint, and forged one copy of the contract for transfer of bonds under the name of the limited company E, which is a private document on the rights and obligations, in the transferor column, for the purpose of exercising the right at the site office of the new construction of the company, Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, and the transferee column.”

B. On May 8, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim with the obligor I Co., Ltd. to order the payment of the construction cost of KRW 983 million at the Sungnam-si District Court in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) (No. 2015 tea 1008), and filed a claim with the obligor I Co., Ltd. for the payment of the construction cost of KRW 983 million (No. 2015 tea 1008), and submitted one copy of the contract for the transfer of claims under the name of

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as stated in the judgment, such as the statement at the F, J’s investigative agency and court and written statement of the understanding of the construction work, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 300,000,000 and KRW 300,000 as to the charge of forging a private document.

3. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, at the time of filing the appeal, prepared a contract for the transfer of bonds according to the intention of the representative director F of the company E with limited liability, does not constitute forgery of the private document and exercise

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. The judgment of this Court

A. The facts of recognition based on the records are as follows. F is a limited company E (hereinafter “E”) with which the representative director was assigned.