The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, who comprehensively delegated the right to use the seal imprint by E and D, was permitted to prepare the loan certificate as stated in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”), so it is presumed that E and D obtained consent or was naturally accepted at the time of the preparation of the loan certificate of this case, and that the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the act of aiding

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict against the defendant, which erred by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in preparing a private document does not constitute the crime of forging a private document if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented, and on the other hand, considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act without the real consent of the nominal owner, the crime of forging a private document is not established. However, even if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act without the explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be readily concluded that the consent was presumed to have been given if the nominal owner knew of the fact that the document was written (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201).