The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had the intent to commit the act of forging or uttering a notice, on the grounds that, in full view of the following: (a) the J and G stated that the Defendant has no means to deliver the notice to the board of directors in the name of the representative director specifically and consistently; and (b) the Defendant also stated that there was no prior consent or consent from the relevant persons with respect to the notice held by the board of directors; and (c) the Defendant is a person who has no prior consent or consent

B. In full view of the Defendant’s written approval of the draft, G’s circumstance of filing an objection, Defendant’s time of the change of address, etc., the lower court, which did not recognize the Defendant’s notice on which the representative director’s official seal was sealed by facsimile, but did not recognize it.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the forgery of a private document is based on the following facts: (a) at this court, the witness J, the chief of the management department of the company, received the defendant's order at the time, called "J" in relation to the notification of the holding of the board of directors meeting; (b) G provided the necessary cooperation when stating that the issue would be dealt with in Seoul; (c) G transferred it to the defendant; and (d) the defendant stated that he did not talk with G when reporting to the defendant; and (b) the defendant himself expressed that he did not talk with G, etc.; and (c) the explicit reply that H directly permitted the preparation of the above notification was in a state of not hearing that he did not directly listen to the above notification, as described in the facts charged, it is necessary to question whether the defendant had the intent under the above Article and prepared or exercised the above notification, as stated in the facts charged, and (b) the defendant was the same.