1. From December 1, 201 to July 11, 2012, the Defendant altered a private document: (a) at the Defendant’s house located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City building 401; (b) on December 1, 2011, on the third floor of the building located in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant deleted the “third floor” as indicated in the column for the structure and use of the building in the real estate sales contract, which entered into and entered into a sales contract with E, and affixed the Defendant’s seal and affixed the Defendant’s seal under paragraph (2) of the special terms on the deletion of the said E.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant modified a copy of a real estate sales contract in the name of E, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. On July 11, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the said E at the public service center of the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, for a claim for the refund of the purchase price under 2012Gahap521977, and exercised the altered real estate sales contract by submitting the altered real estate sales contract to the relevant employee who was unaware of such alteration, along with the written complaint as if it were duly constituted.

(1) For a crime relating to documents under the Criminal Act, the term "documents" means copies made by mechanical means capable of concurrently performing the original or its social function, credibility, etc., which are the indication of intention or concept described on the material object continuously by letters or the virtual code capable of substituting them, and whose contents can be admitted as evidence for major matters in the social life, legal and social life.

(Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269 delivered on September 5, 1995). In addition, the crime of altering private documents is established when there is a risk of undermining the public trust by causing a person without authority to change the content of documents in another’s name to the extent that the identity is not undermined with respect to the content of the documents in another’s name, which has already been duly established. If there was the explicit or implied consent of the name of the document with respect to the modification or alteration of the private documents.