The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) received a request from the injured party for change of business name; and (b) accordingly, prepared and submitted the instant report of business closure.

In addition, when one damaged person lends the name of the business operator to the defendant, the right to change the name of the business operator can be comprehensively delegated without a separate consent.

B. Sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of five million won)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of forgery of a private document does not constitute the crime of alteration of the private document if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented in preparing or amending the private document, since the crime of forgery of the private document refers to the case where a person who is not authorized to prepare the private document uses another person's name.

On the other hand, although there was no real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act by taking into account all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the crime of the above alteration of private document is not established.

However, even though the nominal owner knows that there is no explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, if the nominal owner knows the preparation of the document, it cannot be readily concluded that the failure of the nominal owner is presumed to have been presumed to have been accepted or predicted.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality of misconception of the facts alleged by the Defendant.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

① The instant report on the closure of business was made by F upon the Defendant’s request, and the Defendant said F to the effect that “the victim allowed F to file a report on the closure of business due to the omission of the victim.” The F and the victim’s conversations.