1. Forgery of private documents and the uttering of a falsified investigation document;

A. In fact, the Defendant received the deposit for the Seoul apartment rent and repaid the existing loan, and the Daegu apartment was contracted monthly, but the Defendant used the Seoul apartment rent deposit as the deposit for the Daegu apartment rent to the wife C.

The purpose of this study was to forge the Daegu apartment lease contract.

On July 24, 2014, the Defendant stated “G” and “K” in the “F” column in the column of the lease agreement in which the lessee entered the Defendant as the Defendant for the purpose of exercising the right of defense at the infinite coffee shop located in Daegu-gu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, and the Defendant appears to be a clerical error in the indictment, but it does not seem to be a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense even if the indictment was corrected without changing the indictment. Accordingly, the Defendant’s amendment ex officio is made ex officio.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

“” and “A copy of the lease agreement signed under the name of H, which is a private document on rights and obligations, with the seal of H arbitrarily affixed to H’s name, was forged. Around July 2014, at the end of the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 101 Dong 1103, a forged lease agreement was exercised as if it was duly concluded.

B. The Defendant knew that there was a bank deposit in the name of C due to insufficient living expenses, etc., and attempted to forge C’s written request for a deposit and use it by receiving a deposit from the bank.

On December 22, 2014, the Defendant stated “J” in the bank request form “J”, the amount column “W 1,640,000 won”, and the name “C” in the sexual name column on the bank request form kept for the purpose of exercising the right.