The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant had the authority to issue the tax invoice in the name of the HHA in accordance with the performance note entered into with HABA and the HABA, and such contractual status was succeeded to the HAAE, and as G, the actual representative of the HHA and the HABA, consented to the issuance of the instant tax invoice in the name of HAE, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the facts charged and convicted the Defendant, even though it did not constitute the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of the relevant investigation document.

2. The subject to which the intention or concept expressed in a document prepared by the representative director of the judgment company in a manner that represents his representative qualification belongs is a stock company that is not an individual representative director.

Whether such an act of preparing a document constitutes the foregoing Article shall be determined by whether the originator has the authority to lawfully prepare the document in the name of the corporation, and it shall not be determined by whether the document has received delegation or consent with respect to the preparation of the document from the person whose representative director is indicated in the document.

In addition, even if a legitimate representative director is a corporation, it is not allowed to comprehensively delegate his authority to another person to handle the business of the representative director.

Therefore, as a matter of principle, preparing documents in the name of a person who is delegated by the representative director with the power to comprehensively exercise his/her authority is an act of preparing documents in the name of a non-authorized person, and constitutes the preparation of qualification documents or the same Article, and exceptionally preparing documents in the name of a stock company only when delegated or approved by the representative director individually and specifically.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2016, Nov. 27, 2008). As to the instant case, the instant case was examined.