A. On August 2010, the Defendant changed the private document to 33,300,000, stating “A” in front of the 3,300,000 Won Won Won, which was indicated in the column of the receipt amount of August 20, 2010 in the name of the Attorney C law Office, using a black-type pen in a lower place than Seoul. The Defendant changed to 33,30,000, stating “D” between the receiver’s “D” and changed to “D and Ha”, respectively.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising a certificate of fact, the Defendant altered one receipt in the name of the attorney C, which is a private document related to a certificate of fact.

B. At the office of licensed real estate agents in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant issued a false receipt to F and exercised it as if it was a document duly formed at the time of paragraph (1).

2. The defendant alleged that he received the receipt of this case from D and delivered it to F as it is, and that it did not have been issued by altering it as stated in the facts charged.

3. Determination

A. First of all, when collecting evidence, such as receipts attached to a statement made by the Defendant, F, and D in an investigative agency and a written accusation, the fact that: (a) on August 20, 2010, D obtained a receipt of KRW 3,300,000 from C attorney-at-law and delivered it to the Defendant; and (b) thereafter, the fact that the above receipt delivered to F through the Defendant was modified by the payee D, A, and 33,00,000 won as stated in the facts charged at present, it is true that there is a high possibility that the receipt was altered by either the Defendant or F.

B. The facts charged of the instant case are two persons who altered the receipt, and the F’s investigation agency and the purport that the evidence thereof was issued by the Defendant.