In order to newly build a livestock shed in the above village, as the Defendants needed a written consent from the livestock shed to newly build a friendship for the village residents who reside within a radius of 500 meters, the Defendants were willing to forge a written consent from one of the above village residents E.

On October 21, 2017, the Defendants conspired to commit the co-principal offenses, and around October 21, 2017, at the house of Defendant A located in D, Defendant B entered the name and address of the victim using a shotle on the printed written consent paper with the shotle, and the Defendant A affixed the prior seal of the victim in his custody.

Ultimately, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendants forged a letter of consent in the name of the victim, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations.

B. On October 2017, Defendant B submitted to the competent public official a written consent from the Environment-Friendly Livestock Council of the Korea Coast-Friendly Republic of Korea located in the Sinan-gun, Seoan-gun, U.S., U.S., U.K., and submitted the written consent from the victim under the above paragraph (a) as if it were duly formed.

2. Determination

(a) written consent according to the E’s intent of the assertion;

B. There is a written statement of F with regard to the admissibility of evidence that seems consistent with the facts charged in the judgment, that there is no record of the E’s legal statement, the police statement of E, and the seal of E.

However, in this Court, E states that the power of attorney to file a complaint prepared by the person himself did not prepare it, and that there was no investigation by the police, and in investigation agencies, two seals were affixed, and the person himself/herself is one, and the statement is made as if his/her head was unable to properly associate with it.

E Statements are difficult to believe as they are.

In addition, E shall be from the court.