A. Defendant 1) Regarding the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified investigation document among the facts charged in the instant case, in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was running a business by lending the name of C prior to the completion of the instant promise; (b) after the occurrence of the problems between husband and wife, C returned the identification card and the seal impression to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant was settled at the time of completion of the instant construction; and (d) C does not seem to have any awareness of raising any objection despite having known the existence of the instant promise around September 25, 2009 by the construction business operator, who was aware of the existence of the instant promise; (b) insofar as the obligation of the construction business operator stated in the instant promise is not a false bond, but both the Defendant and C are not a nominal owner of the instant promise, it is reasonable to deem that C implicitly consented to the preparation of each of the instant promise at the time of the completion of the formation of the instant promise, and there is no agreement between C as the Defendant and C’s use of each of the instant instrument.

B) As to the charge of fraud and attempted fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, as part of the measures to secure a construction business operator’s claim for the construction cost, is in fact a part of the measures to secure the Defendant’s claim for construction cost, the Suwon-si Do, Suwon-si, which

(1) The provisional attachment was made by C, the nominal owner and the provisional attachment debtor of the land of this case, and upon application by C, the construction business operator has filed a lawsuit in response to the order of the court, and C has lost the lawsuit.

Even if the property is deducted from the property division subject to the divorce lawsuit, which was in progress at the time of the rent, and the net property does not have any particular influence, and as seen earlier, the defendant is the case.