Defendant

A on September 7, 2015, after having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the District Court, the judgment became final and conclusive on the 15th day of the same month.

The part of the facts charged No. 1 through 8 of the 2015 Highest 1593, which is separate by separate judgment, is to be stated in accordance with the item number of the facts charged in order to prevent confusion. Defendant A and C jointly committed the crime (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendants” in this paragraph) purchased real estate without security value in the name of the former tenant, and conspired to acquire money by deceiving the victim with the fact that he/she did not have the former tenant, with the purchase of real estate without security value in the C’s name.

A. The Defendants drafted the content of access to the transfer household of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office by deleting the details of transfer of theO listed in the details of access to the transfer household of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government N302, which was issued through C at the adjoining land in 2014.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to alter the content of the transfer household of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, which is an official document, for the purpose of uttering.

B. On October 2, 2014, the Defendants issued the modified official document as if they were issued genuinely as stated in the foregoing paragraph to H, who was aware of the fact of the alteration at a certified judicial scrivener office near the said intersection.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to use the altered official document.

(c)

The fraud Defendants made a false statement to H, who was delegated by the victim I at the same date, time, and place as described in the foregoing paragraph (b), stating that “Defendant C is residing without Defendant C’s tenant in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and thus, Defendant C is residing therein, the said real estate is leased KRW 70 million as security.”

The fact is that the tenant who paid the deposit close to the market price of the real estate is residing in the above real estate and there is no security value and the victim shall pay money.