In addition, on January 4, 2016, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the victim to seek payment of KRW 30 million stated in the instant lease agreement and attempted to obtain such money, but did not intend to raise an objection against the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was a person engaged in real estate business, and a de facto marital relationship with the victim D at the victim D’s residence located in Gyeonggi-gun C from May 2009 to April 2013.

1) The Defendant forged a false real estate lease agreement, submitted it to the public official in charge of the office E-Myeon office in the Ycheon-gun Office, and received a fixed date.

On December 15, 2009, the Defendant stated in the title “real estate lease agreement,” which was used for the ordinary real estate brokerage business in the above residence, as the form of “real estate lease agreement,” the real estate located in the column of the real estate located in Gyeonggi-do “Ycheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and one other (hereinafter “instant real estate”)”, “Yeocheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and one pen (30,000,000),” and in the column of the deposit money, the Defendant voluntarily stated the victim’s name and personal information in the lessor column, and affixed the victim’s seal arbitrarily affixed to the victim’s name.

Accordingly, the defendant forged the lease contract of the above real estate (house) in the name of the victim, a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of exercising the right.

2) On February 19, 2010, the Defendant held the foregoing investigation document G in Gyeonggi-do.