The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant: (a) obtained a comprehensive consent from H with regard to the construction of a building on the ground of 440 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Namyang-si, Namyang-si; and (b) drafted documents under H, such as the description 1(a) and (f) of the facts charged, with respect to the construction of a building on the ground.

In addition, the "report of building, substantial repair, or alteration of the purpose of use" as stated in the facts charged No. 1 is prepared by theO where the lessee of the land in this case was the owner of the land in this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of imprisonment of the first instance court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (i) The offense of forgery or alteration of a private document of legal doctrine refers to the preparation of a document by a person who is not authorized to make a document in the name of another person. As such, if the nominal owner explicitly or impliedly consented in preparing or amending a private document, it does not constitute the offense of forgery or alteration of the private document. Meanwhile, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act without the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, in full view of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, it is presumed that the nominal owner would have given consent, as a matter of course, would not constitute the offense of forgery or alteration of the private document. However, even if the nominal owner knew of the fact that there was no explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be concluded that the consent was presumed that the nominal owner

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587 Decided September 29, 201). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the following is acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court.