The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “the Defendant, without the consent of E from the D office located on the third floor of Gangnam-si C around February 11, 201, entered “F” in the printing contract using a photofluoring pen to the E’s resident number column and affixed the E’s seal that the Defendant was in his/her name and used, thereby forging one copy of the printing contract in the name of E, which is a private document on rights and duties, and, at that time and place, deliver the forged printing contract to G as if the document was duly formed.”

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that he had impliedly consented to the preparation of a printing contract.

The crime of forging private documents refers to the preparation of a document by a person without the authority to prepare it in the name of another person. Thus, if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented in the preparation of a private document, it does not constitute the crime of forging private documents. Meanwhile, if the nominal owner knew the fact at the time of the act without the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the crime of forging private documents does not constitute the crime of forging private documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do235, May 30, 2003; 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, H, the husband of the defendant, from around 31, 2010 to his/her father, entered into a contract to publish I who is a living information site, and transferred his/her business to his/her father at the time of the act, and the actual transfer of his/her business to H.