Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part regarding the forgery of a purchase confirmation and a payment memorandum.

On October 19, 2010, the Defendant had a right to own 1/8 of the above forest land since C had a burden of 1/8 of the purchase price in purchasing forest land D with the wife population in Yongsan-si in 1963. Around December 29, 2006, C promised the Defendant to pay 3.5 million won, which is the amount converted into the officially announced land price, to the Defendant. Around December 29, 2006, E, F, and G, who is a child of C, had a joint and several liability, forged relevant documents by suggesting that C had jointly and severally and severally carried out a civil lawsuit against G, thereby having received money from G.

1. The Defendant of the crime of forgery of notice was jointly and severally guaranteed in the payment angle because he knows the ownership share of 1,00 square meters out of 8,000 square meters in the forest land located in Gyeonggi-do at the time of her mother and her mother's mother in the blank “A” using a computer document program in blank, and “I” in subparagraph (b) of “I” was jointly and severally guaranteed in the payment angle, but there is no room for vindication and defense without resolving any complicated dispute, such as the distribution of property of 100 million won donated by her mother and her mother. The Defendant will solve the problem at the early date (8 months) at the time of 201 and after the date of her mother's mother's mother, she had a seal in advance on the above G name.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged a notice under G name, which is a private document on fact-finding.

2. On January 4, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of an agreed amount of KRW 350 million against G at a court 69 Suwon-si District Court’s comprehensive civil petition office at Suwon-si, and as such, it appears that the notice of forgery and the notice of payment forged under the name of G are documents duly concluded with the court employees who are not aware of the forgery.