All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Since the Defendants prepared the articles of incorporation in the belief that Defendant B had the authority to prepare the articles of incorporation as a saverian, the Defendants did not recognize the forgery of private documents, and there was no conspiracy.

Even if the former pastor C had the authority to prepare the instant articles of incorporation, it cannot be ruled out that the consent was given. Thus, the crime of forging private documents is not established.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to private documents.

The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants of unfair sentencing (one million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendants did not have any perception or intention as to the private document’s deliberation at the time of the instant case, the Defendants’ defense counsel asserted as to the grounds for appeal of this case at the original court. The lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by comparing the judgment of the lower court with the record and closely examining the above judgment.

Furthermore, as to the assertion that the deceased C pastor would have consented to the preparation of the instant articles of association, it would not be the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act, considering all objective circumstances at the time of the act without the real consent of the nominal owner. However, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act, it would not be the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. However, if the nominal owner knew of the fact of the document preparation without the explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, the consent is anticipated or predicted.