Seized evidence 1 to 12 shall be confiscated.

1. As the Defendant resided in C, D, and senior lessee E, the Defendant, as he did not have any particular value of collateral, expressed the forged “written statement of perusal of the occupying household” to the borrower as if he did not have any tenant, to set up a collateral and obtain money from the borrower under the name of the borrowed money.

On November 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a “written statement of access to the moving household (including a cohabitant)” with respect to F 106 at the Ulsan-gu G community service center, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, and delivered it to D via C. Around November 16, 2015. D deleted the resident personal information from the IPC room located in H at P, P, P, stating the phrase “the head of the address is not the head of the household,” and then forged the “written statement of access to the moving household (including a cohabitant)” to C by printing it on the paper, and C sent it to a mutually defective certified judicial scrivener office.

On November 16, 2015, at around 11:00, the Defendant issued a “resident confirmation document” to the victim K who is aware of the fact that he/she would not receive a tenant by the time the loan is repaid, and the collateral value is sufficient because he/she did not reside in F 106 by the prior lessee of F 106.

However, in fact, F 106, which was owned by the Defendant, had no particular security value as the prior lessee is already residing in the Defendant, and the “written statement of access to the relocated household (including a person living together)” stated as if the tenant had no security value, was forged, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, there was no intention or ability to repay

Accordingly, the defendant was forged.