Defendant

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, upon delegation from D and E, prepared and used a party appointment letter, etc. in the name of D and E.

However, the court below erred in finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In light of the poor nature of the offense committed by the public prosecutor, the punishment imposed by the court below (2 million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. When the Defendant prepares a party appointment letter, etc. under the name of D or E, the Defendant arbitrarily sold the seal and made the said document without obtaining the consent from D or E.

The Defendant and K were delegated to exercise shareholder voting rights by D and E, and the Defendant’s drafting of the instant party appointment, etc. was intended to file a civil lawsuit under the intent to protect rights as a shareholder D and E, and thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant prepared documents in his name within the scope delegated by D and E.

Defendant’s delegation from D on February 7, 2011, by K on February 8, 2011, of the authority to exercise voting rights in the name as a shareholder of C Co., Ltd. from E on February 8, 201 (the trial record 159 through 162). However, the scope of delegation cannot be deemed as naturally included in the authority to prepare documents of lawsuit in the name of D and E related to filing a lawsuit seeking nullification of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

Although the court below stated to the effect that D’s “if it is necessary to file a lawsuit to return invested money, it was no superior to D’s own name.” However, the Defendant did not obtain a direct consent from D at the time of each of the instant crimes, and delegated D’s delegation to D via L to the Defendant is an exercise of shareholder’s voting right.