All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) (1) The representative director D of the J and the UAC (hereinafter “instant corporation”) of the complainants and the UAC (hereinafter “the instant corporation”) comprehensively delegated the business of the instant corporation to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) drafted and exercised the instant “written request for the grant of compensation for water incorporated into the Corporation” and “written request for withdrawal”; and (b) such act is within the scope of the authority comprehensively delegated by D to the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant received compensation for losses from viewing through viewing, and used them for the operation of the R station, and was ratified by the J of the settlement of accounts.

2) Improper sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution)

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below), the defendant's crime of forging each private document and uttering of the above investigation document can be acknowledged.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court.

In full view of the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the court below held that it is difficult to view that it is within the scope of the power delegated by J and D, or that D, as a matter of course, allow the Defendant to receive compensation for losses and to use it as a gas station operating expenses, to receive compensation for losses in the name of the corporation of this case, in order to receive compensation for losses, it is objectively presumed that it was objectively presumed that the Defendant was able to receive compensation for losses in the name of the corporation of this case, and that it was ratified from D ex post facto as to the preparation of each document in the name of the corporation

It is difficult to see that this part of the facts charged can be fully admitted.

The decision was determined.

2) The reasoning of the lower judgment based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court is as follows.