beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The crime of forging a private document 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, if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented in preparing the private document, the crime of forging the private document is not applicable if the nominal owner did not have actually consented at the time of the act, but if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act, considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the crime of forging the private document is not established, but the case presumed to have naturally consented if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act. However, even if the nominal owner knew of the fact of preparing the document without the explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be concluded that
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9987, Apr. 10, 2008; 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201). In formulating the instant lease agreement in the name of G with the seal affixed by the Defendant, based on the adopted evidence, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) in preparing the instant lease agreement in the name of G, on behalf of G or G on behalf of the nominal owner, there was the express or implied consent of the JJ that has practically managed the instant housing on behalf of G or G.
The judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the consent cannot be presumed or that the defendant's consent is not presumed, is reversed, and the charges of this case are convicted
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.