1. The Defendant, from March 201 to August 201, 201, is a person working as a manager at the construction site of the E-style apartment newly constructed on KRW D and three parcels in the Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gun, and the victim F was a person who, around December 2, 2006, had been in custody of temporary materials, such as fry house, owned by the victim, on the ground that he did not receive the construction cost from the executor, while carrying out the structural construction at the construction site of the said apartment at the construction site of the said apartment.

Around May 2, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 30,660,000 from the construction business operator G who was responsible for the construction of the said apartment site at the said new site office for the victim as the manager of the said new site of apartment, and lent the said new site to him/her at his/her discretion without the consent of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. Around June 2011, the Defendant forged private document: (a) without obtaining the consent from the J, the representative director of the CF, at the I site office located in Gangseo-gun H; (b) the Defendant, using a computer, prepared the title “Standard Contract for Construction Works”; (c) the name of the construction work; (d) the name of the E Apartment Construction; (e) the contract amount; (e) the contract amount; (e) the contractor’s representative director J; (e) the contractor’s representative director K; and (e) the preparation date; and (e) printed out two copies, the Defendant signed and sealed the two copies of the document by using the computer.

Accordingly, the defendant, for the purpose of exercising rights and obligations, forged the standard contract form of private construction works in the name of C Co., Ltd.

3. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in paragraph (2), issued a copy of the standard contract for private construction works forged as above to L, a complaint of the I stock company, which was aware of the forgery, as if they were duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's first statement in court;