The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in preparing documents in the name of C with legitimate delegation and consent from H, the representative director of the corporation C (hereinafter “C”), and the documents in the facts charged are prepared with individual and specific consent from H every time. Thus, the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of private investigation documents is not established, and there is no intention of unlawful acquisition and deception, and even if there is no intention of deception, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

According to records, the defendant was sentenced to 2 years of suspended sentence, 120 hours of community service and 40 hours of lecture for compliance driving in order to October 17, 201 under the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu Government District Court on November 17, 201, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 6, 2011. The crime in the judgment of the court below is related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of which judgment has become final and conclusive in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be determined in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, the court below taken such measures only with respect to the crime of occupational embezzlement which became final and conclusive on October 30, 201

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.

3. We examine the determination of the mistake of facts, and even if a legitimate representative director of a corporation is a legitimate representative director, it is not allowed to comprehensively delegate his/her authority to allow another person to perform the business of the representative director.

Therefore, the representative director's exercise of authority comprehensively.