The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant and D maintained a smooth relationship at the time when the Defendant drafted and exercised the instant lease agreement by mistake of facts, there was a dispute between the Defendant and D when the Defendant applied for a payment order based on the loan claim against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) whose representative director was D, and thus, it can be deemed that D had a constructive consent at the time of the preparation and exercise of the instant lease agreement.

Nevertheless, the court below held that D's constructive consent is not recognized on the ground that the lease contract of this case was prepared and exercised after a dispute occurred between the defendant and D. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document in a judgment on the assertion of mistake refers to the preparation of a document by a person who is not authorized to make a document in the name of another person, if there was an implied consent of the nominal owner in preparing or amending the private document, it does not constitute a crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. Meanwhile, it is not deemed that the nominal owner naturally accepted the document 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, while considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document is not established. However, if the nominal owner knew of the preparation or alteration of the document, it cannot

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9987, Apr. 10, 2008). The lower court determined as follows: (1) H (hereinafter referred to as “H”) regarding the Seocho-gu Seoul E building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lending”) owned by D, to C operated by D.