The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as a shareholder of E Co., Ltd and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant companies”), has entrusted only the shareholder’s name to C and D. In managing each of the instant companies, the Defendant should be deemed to have been comprehensively permitted to use the name from C and D.

Therefore, the act of preparing and using each share acquisition agreement in the name of C and D does not constitute the crime of forging and uttering of private documents, and the act of taking corporate identification cards and corporate identification books of each company of this case does not constitute larceny. The act of making and exercising the corporate director of each company of this case by making registration of changing the contents of the company director of the company of this case in the written resolution of shareholders' whole by using each share acquisition agreement, corporate identification cards, and corporate identification books, etc. of this case, does not constitute the crime of false entry and uttering of the authentic copy of the authentic deed.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an asset is held in title by a trustee without any burden on the truster with regard to each of the crimes of forging and utteringing each private document, it is reasonable to deem that the trustee comprehensively allowed the disposal and use of the asset in his/her name to the truster, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, in preparing documents necessary for the disposal of the trust property in the name of the trustee, the truster did not obtain an individual consent from the trustee, in preparing

Even if there is no crime of forging or uttering private documents, but if there is a dispute over the ownership of trust property between the truster and the truster because the trustee denies the fact of title trust and asserts that he/she owns his/her own ownership, the truster is no longer.