All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the below, the defendant uses the title "the defendant" only for the defendant who falls under each item, and the remaining defendants shall state only their names.

A1) Of the relevant companies and financial institutions, Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., which are the objects of the crime of forging private documents of this case and the crime of uttering of falsified investigation documents of this case, all of the remainder except for the Auri Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd. and the Auri Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the object of the crime of forging private documents of this case. The part of the “stock company” or “limited company” is omitted in its title (hereinafter referred to as “Nuri Heavy Industries”).

(2) Each contract for the modification of each contract for construction works under the name of each party, and each additional contract for the payment and return of the advance payment for construction works (hereinafter “each additional agreement”).

In addition, a written consent to the notification of the establishment of security by means of transfer to a financial institution is not for the payment guarantee of modern Heavy Industries.

Therefore, the above documents do not constitute a "unfair contract, debt guarantee, joint and several sureties and other guarantee that may cause property loss of the company" which requires the approval of the representative director according to the detailed rules on delegation resolution inside the modern middle industry, and the defendant prepared the above documents after obtaining approval from the managing director who is the officer in charge of B and obtaining approval. The defendant's act does not constitute the act of forging the private documents or the use of the above investigation documents, or it should be deemed that the modern middle industry's constructive approval was obtained in relation to the preparation of

In addition, the defendant had no intention to forge the private document or to use the private document.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of forging this part of the private document and the uttering of the falsified Private Document, based on the circumstances stated in its holding. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.