The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) obtained the express consent and consent from B, “Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document refers to a person who is not authorized to make a document in the name of another person, the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document if the title holder explicitly or impliedly consented in preparing or amending the private document. Meanwhile, even if the title holder did not have actually consented at the time of the act, if the title holder knew of the fact at the time of the act, considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document is presumed not to be established. However, even if the title holder knew that there was no explicit consent or consent of the title holder, it cannot be concluded that the consent was presumed to have been obtained solely on the basis of the expectation or prediction that the title holder

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9987, Apr. 10, 2008; 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201). At the time of reporting marriage, if the victim was liquidated his/her living together with the Defendant and was avoided due to the fact that the victim was not living together with the Defendant, the victim was in de facto marital relationship with the victim, and the victim was willing to marry.

Even if the intention of marriage was withdrawn at the time of the above report of marriage, so the so-called "the defendant unilaterally prepared the marriage report and reported the marriage," the victim's seal was affixed in the form of the report of marriage.

It constitutes a crime of forgery of private documents or other relevant legal provisions.

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 198Do448 delivered on April 11, 1987