A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 2015, the Defendant, in order to prepare a written contract for trading in the name of D Co., Ltd. from a trade in the name in the vicinity of the Defendant’s office located in Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant: (a) placed the seal of D Co., Ltd in the name of the business owner without knowledge of the circumstances; and (b) had the Defendant affix the seal of D Co., Ltd. in the name of the business owner.

Accordingly, the defendant, without authority, forged the seal in the name of D Co., Ltd.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Complaint;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they should be dismissed from intentional illegality or responsibility because they are mistaken for the situation where D's consent or constructive consent was obtained or presumed to be obtained with respect to the marking of seals in the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D"). Even if they are not so, the defendant should be dismissed on the ground that there was a legitimate ground for misunderstanding that D's consent or constructive consent was obtained, or that there was a legitimate ground for misunderstanding.

However, on August 10, 2015, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence adopted by this court; ① D requested the Defendant to purchase real estate from the Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant agreed to affix the employee seal to the real estate transaction contract in the form provided by D in connection with the purchase business (see Article 4 subparag. 2 and subparag. 3 of the Real Estate Purchase Services Contract); ② The head and the employee seal impression of D also managed by the representative director; ② the employee E of D also has no authority to affix the corporate seal to the Defendant; ③ the Defendant also recognized that the investigative agency had affixed the corporate seal without D’s consent; ④ the Defendant’s seal affixed to D.