(a) Whether an association has the right to enter into a contract for current account transactions with the executive director;

(b) Crimes of forging documents and forging documents;

(c) At the beginning of the power of entrustment, making a document and forging documents;

(d) Preparation of documents by abusing his/her authority and commission of the crime of forging documents;

(a) In a union that provides for matters concerning the execution of its affairs as the resolution of the board of directors, the conclusion of current account transaction contract aiming at the issuance of the per share table shall be made in the name of the chief director, subject to the resolution of the board of directors, and in order for the executive director to execute this, the chief director must delegate his/her authority, and in cases where the executive director acts as an executive director, there is no authority to make

B. Whether the crime of forging documents is established shall be determined in the form of whether the document was prepared in the name of another person, and the truth of the contents of the document shall not affect the establishment of the crime, except where there is a special penal provision.

(c) An offense of forging documents is established, if the entrusted authority is drawn up in writing with the name of the truster monthly.

(d) In case where the representative or agent of another person has the right to prepare a document using the name of his/her representative, representative or direct title, and where he/she prepares a document in the name of his/her representative, representative or direct title with the intent of pursuing his/her own interest or a third person by abusing his/her authority, the crime of forging a document shall not be

(a) Articles 47, 48, and 49(b) of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act;

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1199 Decided November 22, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 83Do332 Decided April 12, 1983

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-hee

Chuncheon District Court Decision 83No101 delivered on July 7, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance as to the defendant's grounds for appeal, the court below's dismissal is clear since it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant who asserted the grounds for appeal as the grounds for appeal, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the records, the non-indicted cooperative whose executive director is the defendant is a cooperative established under the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act, the association's business execution shall be decided by its board of directors (Article 46 (1) of the same Act), matters concerning the management of affairs of the association shall be decided by the board of directors (Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, Article 43 (1) 3 of the articles of association), minor matters among the matters to be resolved by the board of directors may be delegated to the chairperson by resolution of the board of directors (Article 43 (2) of the articles of association), the chairperson shall represent the association and exercise overall control of its affairs (Article 48 of the articles of association, Article 52 (1) of the articles of association), the executive director shall assist the chairperson of the association to execute the affairs of the association, and the head of the association shall prepare the so-called agreement on behalf of the chairperson (Article 49 of the same Act, Article 52 (1) of the articles of association, and Article 52 (1) of the same Act) of the same Act), and examine the records of the court below's opinion that the defendant shall not be delegated by the chairperson.

With respect to the third point:

As mentioned above, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which held that the defendant issued the check of this case without the check contract with the central branch of the Gangwon Bank since the check contract is null and void, inasmuch as the defendant composed the name of the chairman who is the representative of the union and forged the relevant documents and signed a check contract with the central branch of the Hanwon Bank without the check contract with the above bank, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the check of this case, or the interpretation of Article 2 (1) 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act. The argument is groundless.

2. Defendant 2’s appeal is examined.

Defendant 2 did not submit a statement of the reason for final appeal within the statutory period even after filing an appeal, and the petition of final appeal does not state the reason therefor, and such final appeal shall not be exempt from dismissal.

3. We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

The establishment of the crime of forging a document shall be determined by the form of whether the document was prepared in the name of another person or not, and the truth of the document shall not affect the establishment of the crime except where there is a special penal provision. Therefore, in a case where the entrusted authority is prepared in the name of a truster with the beginning of the entrusted authority, the crime of forging a document shall be established. However, in a case where the representative or agent of another person (see Supreme Court Decision 66Do1199, Nov. 22, 1966) has the authority to prepare a document by using the name of the representative, the name of the representative or agent, or the name of the principal directly and directly, with the intent of seeking the benefit of himself or a third party, the crime of forging a document shall not be established, unlike the above cases (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do32, Apr. 12, 1983). The judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the forgery of a document and the judgment of the first instance court.

The precedent of the lawsuit cannot be appropriate for this case, unlike the case. The argument is groundless.

4. The prosecutor and the defendants' appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)