Defendant

B entered into a provisional contract for the lease of the E apartment in the Jeju city as a broker of Defendant A, but the above D was aware that Defendant B would try to operate the above apartment as a private childcare center.

In spite of the fact that Defendant B received a prior application for the authorization of a private childcare center at the Naju City Office, Defendant B conspired to forge and submit a real estate lease agreement, which is a document necessary for the prior application with Defendant A.

1. On February 4, 2016, the Defendants drafted private documents with the title of “real estate lease agreement” using a computer at the G Certified Private Brokerage Office located in F of Naju City on February 4, 2016, and printed out “Seoul-do Do Do Do 406, No. 102 of the 1st century,” “10,000,000,000 won for deposit,” “Seoul-do Do Do Do Do Do Do ,” “Seoul-do Do ,00,000,000 won for deposit,” “Y,437, resident registration number I,” and “D”.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to forge one copy of the real estate lease agreement in the name of D, a private document on rights and obligations.

2. On February 4, 2016, the Defendants offered to use a forged real estate lease agreement as described in paragraph (1) by submitting it to the Cheongju-si Office to exercise it. On February 4, 2016, at the 22B-si Cheongju-si Cheongju-si Office, the Defendants presented the forged real estate lease agreement to K as if it were the contract actually prepared.

However, in order to participate in the procedures for designating the home care center of the Cheongju-si, the Defendants prepared a lease contract in accordance with the terms of the provisional contract between D and Defendant B at the beginning, but this is between two persons.