All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the judgment of the second court of the erroneous determination of facts (the Article 2 of the Private Document), the court below which found the defendant guilty of the fact of the Article 2 of the Private Document, despite the fact that the defendant, with H's implied and comprehensive consent, prepared a request for auction in the H's name and filed a request for auction.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for August, the suspension of execution for two years, and the second lower judgment: a fine of one million won) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the case of this court 2013No1570, and the case of this court 2014No630, which is the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the oral proceedings of the court of first instance. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first and second is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the extent that aggravating concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1)

However, even in this case, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it will be judged.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a crime concerning documents under the relevant legal doctrine, the term “a document forgery” refers to the preparation of a document by a person who is not authorized to prepare the document in the name of another person. Therefore, in preparing a private document, if there is an explicit or implied consent or delegation from the nominal owner, it shall not be deemed that the document forgery constitutes a private document forgery.

In particular, if a document titleholder comprehensively delegates his/her authority to conduct affairs related to the preparation of a document to the document maker in advance, and the document keeper prepares and exercises a document in the name of the document titleholder for the performance of his/her affairs within the scope of the authority delegated by the document originator, the document keeper may prepare individual documents.