The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were employed as the secretary general of the C Cooperatives (hereinafter “instant Cooperatives”), and the Defendant prepared annual salary contract, performance bonus evaluation table, and service standard contract (hereinafter “each of the instant documents”) as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment with the consent or comprehensive delegation from D, the president who is the preparing authority.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the documents in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In preparing a private document, if the nominal owner explicitly or impliedly consented, it does not constitute a crime of forging a private document, and on the other hand, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act, considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act, even though there was no real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, the case presumed to have naturally consented would not constitute a crime of forging a 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 readily concluded that the consent was presumed to have been given solely on the basis of the expectation or prediction that the nominal

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 2011). (B)

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to find that the defendant had an implied and presumed consent or comprehensive delegation with respect to the preparation of each of the documents of this case.

(1) The Defendant, even though it is an important task of an annual salary contract, payment of incentives, and conclusion of a service contract with the Korea National Tourism Organization, does not constitute an important task of an association.