The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In fact, misunderstanding of facts C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was one of the subsidiaries E, the father of the Defendant, and as such, the company had prepared a resolution of the board of directors with the seals of the directors held by the directors. As such, there was an implied and estimated consent of the directors regarding the preparation of a resolution of the board of directors.

Therefore, the defendant, who was appointed as the representative director C, prepared a resolution of the board of directors on September 8, 201 with the seal of E and F that the company had already been in custody, and ② written a resolution of the board of directors on October 20, 201 with the seal of E and F newly made, and October 24, 201 with the seal of E and F, shall be subject to the implied consent of E and F, and thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have forged the resolution of the board of directors. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Unless otherwise, the lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As for the assertion of mistake of facts, since the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document refers to the preparation by a person who is not authorized to make a document in the name of another person, if the nominal owner explicitly or impliedly consented in preparing or amending the private document, it does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. Meanwhile, even if the nominal owner did not have the 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, considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the case presumed to have naturally consented is not the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. However, if the nominal owner knew of the fact that there was no explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be readily concluded that the consent was presumed to have been obtained merely by means

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 2011). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following is examined.