The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant (the defendant), around April 2017, appointed a C lawyer and paid the cost thereof, and there is no request for the preparation of a letter of delegation of litigation in the name of D Co., Ltd. or the submission of it to the court after attaching his official seal thereto.

However, the official seal of the corporation D, which the defendant kept in the above attorney-at-law office, was arbitrarily sealed by the attorney-at-law and submitted it to the court.

Nevertheless, the court below found the misunderstanding of facts to be guilty of forging private documents and holding a falsified investigation document.

On July 2012, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of forging and exercising the F’s delegation of litigation in F’s name, and the prosecutor did not appeal against this, and excluded this portion from the subject of the judgment on the party.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor of the amendment of the indictment, as stated in Paragraph 1-b of Article 1 of the facts charged, applied for the amendment of the indictment to exchange the facts charged as stated in Paragraph 1-B of the facts charged as stated in the judgment below, and the judgment of the court below was changed by granting permission, making it impossible to maintain the judgment below. However, even if the above reasons for the amendment of the indictment exist, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court, and this is based on the premise that the facts charged have been changed as above. (B) The defendant who forged the private document was appointed an attorney-at-law C legal affairs office in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, without the consent of E, a joint representative director of D, even though he did not obtain the consent of E, the defendant appointed an attorney-at-law as the legal representative of the above legal entity, made it clear that he was aware of the fact, printed out the letter of delegation of the lawsuit to D Co., Ltd., Ltd., and gave the name of D.

In this respect.