A. Around June 2014, the Defendant altered private documents: (a) was drafted with C while filing a lawsuit claiming the return of the transfer deposit against C;

The current representative director (D) C shall be the one of the three million won representative directors (hereinafter referred to as “the first executive officer”) who used a block with A’s consent without C’s consent on September 13, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “instant block”).

8. The phrase “the 30th place of payment” and the phrase “the 30th place of payment” was written in front of the name C of the said undertaking, and the phrase “the 30th place of payment” was additionally written in front of the name E of the agricultural corporate body E without authority.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant modified one copy of the private document, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

B. Around June 2014, the Defendant at the time of the alteration of the document: (a) as if the written undertaking of the alteration was duly prepared; and (b) delivered the written undertaking to the staff in charge of creative support at the Changwon District Court.

2. Determination

A. Although the principal evidence as shown in the above facts charged includes the statements of C and F in this court and investigative agency, the complainants and F have different interests in money issues, such as the fact that both the complainants and F currently have experience in civil litigation or civil litigation against the defendant, it is difficult to believe the statements as they are, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge each of the facts charged.

B. Rather, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the Defendant stated the part on which the Defendant altered, with the consent of the complainant, and the Defendant prepared the original copy of the instant commitment with the complainant, and affixed two documents in order to indicate the identity and identity thereof, the original is brought up by the complainant, and the copy was made by the complainant.

The defendant asserts " and actually proves that he had the evidence No. 28."