The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on a different premise, although the Defendant did not have any explicit or implied consent or constructive consent in preparing the printing contract of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On February 11, 201, the Defendant, without the consent of E at the D office located in the 3th floor of Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, the instant facts charged, stated “F” on the E’s resident number column by using a tamping pen in the printing contract, and carried out a printing contract under the name of E, which is a private document concerning rights and duties, for the purpose of exercising by affixing a seal attached to the E in the name of the Defendant’s custody, and then forged one copy of the printing contract under the name of E, which is a private document related to rights and duties, at the same time, and at the same time and place, issued G as if the printing

B. As to the determination of the lower court, the crime of forging private document does not constitute the crime of forging private document, inasmuch as the crime of forging private document refers to the preparation by a person who is not authorized to prepare the document in the name of another person; if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented in preparing the private document, the crime of forging private document does not constitute the crime of forging private document if the nominal owner knew the fact at the time of the act without the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, but in full view of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, it is presumed that the nominal owner naturally consented to the fact at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do235, May 30, 2003; 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201). Based on the legal principles, based on evidence duly adopted and examined, H, the husband of the Defendant, was operating the business of publishing I, a living information site, and signed a business registration agreement and transferred it to E.