How has the Court interpreted the intent element of the forgery statute?

On appeal, appellant contends CALJIC No. 15.26 incorrectly defines the intent element of forgery. She argues, under People v. Lewis, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pages 383-384, 265 Cal.Rptr. 855, the jury should have been instructed that to convict her of forgery, they had to find she intended to cause a loss or damage to the legal, monetary or property rights of another. Appellant also contends CALJIC No. 15.26 allowed the jury to find intent to defraud if she simply caused another person to alter his position to his injury or risk. Thus, the instruction permitted the jury to convict her for conduct not within the scope of the forgery statute. Neither contention has merit.