beta
Text
The Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. Defendant A is the president of the D Association, and Defendant B is the representative director of E Co., Ltd., the agent company of the above Association.
In the case of a provisional injunction against obstruction of business against Defendant A, the Defendants were willing to prepare and send a notice of convening a general meeting and a notice of convening a general meeting in the joint name without the consent of F of the president of the partnership, even though there was a compromise between the president of the partnership and the president of the father of the partnership.
1. On May 1, 2012, at around 10:00, the Defendants forged private documents, using the computer at the above E office located in YY-gu, Y-gu, Y-si, Y-si, and, around 14:00 on May 13, 2012, the Defendants: (a) prepared a “information” and “public announcement for convening an extraordinary general meeting of the Association”; (b) entered the “D association”, “A”, and “F” respectively at the bottom of each of the said written statements; and (c) affixed the name seal of the head of the said association subsequent thereto.
As a result, the Defendants forged each notice and each 391 notice of convening an extraordinary general meeting of the association in the name of Defendant A and F, which is a private document related to a certificate of fact, for the purpose of uttering in collusion.
2. At around 10:00 on May 2, 2012, the Defendants exercised the said investigation document by providing the employees in charge of the said post office, who are aware of the forgery at the former post office having the effect automatic in Yansan-gu, Masan-si, as seen above, a forged notice and each 391 notice convening an extraordinary general meeting of the association, as if they were genuine, and allowing them to send it.
2. Judgment of innocence
A. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendants only prepared the document under the name of the partnership and could not be deemed to have forged the name of F, the vice president of the partnership, and that there was no intention to commit the document.
B. The record of this case reveals the following facts.