On June 20, 201, the Defendant: (a) decided to sell KRW 170 million to the victim E, who had been in the possession of the Defendant; (b) around June 20, 201, at KRW 103 401,000,000,000 of the purchase price; (c) the Defendant continued to reside as the lessee of the said apartment; and (d) decided to convert the remainder of KRW 40,000,000 from the purchase price into the deposit for the said apartment; and (d) around June 22, 2011, the Defendant drafted a lease agreement in the name of the victim stating that “The Defendant shall rent KRW 40,00,000,000,000 in the purchase price for the said apartment owned by the victim”

1. On June 22, 2011, from around September 27, 2011 to around September 27, 2011, the Defendant altered private documents: (a) prepared only one copy of the lease contract at an influent place; (b) had the Defendant kept in custody by advertising the leased money; and (c) had stated that the leased money was “one hundred million” in front of the portion indicated as “one million” in the guarantee column of the said lease contract; and (d) stated “1” in front of the portion indicated as “40,000,000” and changed the said lease contract as if the lease deposit for the said apartment was for KRW 140,000.

2. Exercising any forged document;

A. On September 27, 2011, the Defendant submitted a modified lease agreement, as stated in paragraph (1), at the F-gu, Daegu-gu community service center, to an unofficial in charge of the “final date” of the above community service center, who is aware of the alteration, as if it was made normally.

B. On April 30, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Daegu District Court to order the said apartment under the condition that the leased deposit amount of KRW 40 million is repaid simultaneously in the performance relationship, the Daegu District Court 2015Kadan 109857, which stated that “The Defendant shall order the said apartment to order the said apartment.” On June 18, 2015, the Defendant is admissible as evidence for the said civil procedure against an employee who was not aware of the alteration as if the lease contract was completed normally in accordance with paragraph 1 at the public service center of the Daegu Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu District Court 364 Daegu District Court.