However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 2010, the Defendant decided that the lessee, who had resided in the Do 102 Dong 1001, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, which is the Defendant owned by the Defendant, forged documents as if the lease deposit of the lessee, who had resided in the Do 1001.

1. On January 21, 2010, the Defendant, using a computer at the residence of the Defendant, 301, Dong 107, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, stated that the deposit amount of the apartment pre-sale contract is 's million won in the column of the deposit amount of the apartment pre-sale contract', and entered 'E' into the lessee's address column, 'Y in the resident number column, 'H in the resident number column, and 'E' in the name column, and printed out the document in his name at his own discretion, and marked the document in his name.

Accordingly, the defendant, without authority, forged the apartment lease contract in the name of E, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. On January 22, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around the day of the event of the foregoing investigation document, at the Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu Apartment Building 206 Incheon, the Defendant: (b) delivered the forged apartment lease contract to I as if the said union employees I were the document duly formed; and (c) exercised it.

3. The Defendant, on January 22, 2010, filed an application for a loan to I from the said member of the Mutual Credit Union, and submitted the said apartment lease agreement accompanied by a loan transaction agreement.

However, in fact, the apartment charter contract submitted by the defendant was forged as above, and the deposit that the defendant should actually return to the lessee is not more than 40 million won but not more than 100 million won, so the above apartment house was a building with a low value of collateral as much as its difference.

Around January 25, 2010, the Defendant deceptioned the victim’s ordinary credit union, and then acquired 33 million won as a loan from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. J. .