To the extent that it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the following facts charged are organized and recognized as follows:

1. On May 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 18:50 on May 14, 2013, the Defendant: (b) expressed the attitude that, despite having no intent or ability to pay the price, he/she would have expressed that he/she would pay the price to E, an employee, if he/she had no intention or ability to pay the price; and (c) was provided by E with alcohol and alcohol equivalent to KRW 350,00 in the market price, such as beer 10 bottles, beer 2 bottles, and beer.

2. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant violated the Resident Registration Act: (a) around 02:55, at the D main points indicated in paragraph (1) and on the same ground as the foregoing paragraph (1), the Defendant illegally used the Plaintiff’s resident registration number by leaving the H’s resident registration number (I) while the Defendant was arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender and demanding the presentation of his/her identification card after arresting him/her as a flagrant offender.

3. Private signature, forgery, and uttering of a false investigation or signature;

A. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 14:35, the two-dimensional police station and the office of the Economic Investigation Team located in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si; (b) examined the suspect under suspicion of fraud related to the foregoing paragraph (1); and (c) stated H’s name known to the “person who made the statement” column of the interrogation protocol of suspect interrogation.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged H’s signature for the purpose of exercising the right.

B. The Defendant, at the same date and time as mentioned in the above paragraph (a), submitted to the J as if the signature of H as stated in the suspect interrogation protocol was authentic and signed, and as such, stated “written confirmation” in the facts charged of the suspect interrogation whose signature was forged, and the Defendant forged H’s signature even in the written confirmation of the investigation process (police investigation record 3: 29 pages), but the prosecutor.