The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles, the Defendant, with the implied consent or presumption consent of G, sent G seal to F Co. F (hereinafter “F”) on each of the instant written consent, and such act by the Defendant did not constitute a crime of forging a private document and conducting the said document, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

B. The defendant guilty for an unfair sentencing

Even if the court below's sentence (500,000 won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence admitted by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, G’s implied or presumed consent was obtained on the Defendant’s sealing and sealing G’s seal on each of the instant consent forms.

As can not be seen, we cannot accept the allegation of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on a different premise.

1) The F demanded that the Defendant deposit the automobile inspection agency fee into the Defendant’s personal account in the G E-Maintenance Industry company, and that the Defendant submit the G consent form. The Defendant, without obtaining explicit consent from G, set up each of the instant consent form and sent it by facsimile to F.

2) At an investigative agency, G: (a) the Defendant, in relation to the car inspection contract with F, affixed a seal on G in relation to the “agent registration and CS Education Certificate”; and (b) the F Company’s inspection list, but this is a common contract document related to the E-Maintenance Industry’s work, which can be deemed to have affixed G’s seal on behalf of G; (c) however, it is excluded from the subject of complaint, but F is paid in relation to the car inspection transaction.