If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Upon receipt of a demand notice, the Defendant: (a) donated the real estate share in the name of the husband, using the husband’s seal and identification card; (b) received the real estate share in the name of the husband; and (c) received money from the lender as a collateral.

1. On September 20, 2016, the Defendant forged a private document stating that “The gift contract, the real estate D buildings in the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, and the donor shall deliver the above real estate to the donee and implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership by using a computer in blank at an insular place, and that the donor C and the donee A were kept in custody next to the name of C on September 20, 2016.”

C’s painting was stamped.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one copy of the donation contract in the name of C, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. In order to transfer the registration of ownership of the above real estate in the Dong-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., the Defendant exercised the forged gift contract as if it was duly formed, with the public official in charge of the above public service center of the above public service center who knows that the registration of ownership of the above real estate was forged in his name.

Summary of Evidence

1. A legal statement that there is a fact that a gift contract has been prepared on the date and place decided by the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Contracts of donation and entire certificate of registered matters [the defendant and his defense counsel have been actually delegated or approved by C in preparing a written contract of donation stating criminal facts;

However, in light of the Defendant’s statement itself, the witness’s statement in this Court, and the certificate of seal impression attached to the gift agreement in the holding is issued by proxy (seven pages of investigation records), etc., the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are not acceptable, since it is only recognized that C’s delegation or consent has not been obtained in preparing the gift agreement in the judgment of the Defendant.