The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the holder of a document forged by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles has consented to the preparation of a document to the defendant or can be recognized as an presumed consent, the crime of forging a private document and the crime of uttering of a private document is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of eight million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the assertion that the defendant has given consent from the nominal owner of the document, the defendant, without prior consent or consent on the preparation of the document, recognizes the fact that he has made the basic acceptance evaluation slip or evaluation marking sheet at his discretion (2 pages, 4 pages of the grounds for appeal). If so, it is apparent that the defendant prepared the document without the express or implied consent of the nominal owner of the document. 2) Presumption of the assertion that the defendant may recognize the constructive consent of the document holder, even though there was no real consent of the victim, is presumed to have been naturally accepted if the victim would have known of the content of the act in light of all objective circumstances at the time of the act. However, although there was no real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, it should be presumed that the consent was naturally accepted if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act.

If the nominal owner knows that there is no explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner but the nominal owner knows the preparation of a document, it cannot be readily concluded that the consent is presumed to have been given solely on the basis of the expectation or predicted consent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8081 Decided March 24, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587 Decided September 29, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16797 Decided January 25, 201, etc.). Presumption acceptance has the characteristics of replacing the lack of real consent, and thus, obtains realistic consent.