The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Ⅰ In around 207, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the network C (Death, July 21, 201), the owner of the building B on the ground of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and carried out a paint retail business with the trade name of “D”.

1. Around February 1, 2016, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) obtained a certification from the ASEAN of the network C to the effect that “Inasmuch as the present monthly rent of KRW 3,750,000 has not been paid and the security deposit is paid; (b) if he/she fails to implement it, he/she would cancel the lease contract; (c) he/she shall pay the security deposit; and (d) at that time, he/she used the form of a real estate lease contract to respond thereto; (d) at that time, he/she used the form of the real estate lease contract in the name of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, 1.5; (e) KRW 5 million; (e) KRW 00,000; (e) KRW 5,000; (e) KRW 1,000; and (e) KRW 31,500; and (e) KRW 24,000; and (e) KRW 1,000; and (e) the name of the name of the Plaintiff;

2. Upon receiving demand from the above E to cut off a store which was found at the above store around March 15, 2016, the Defendant, as seen above, presented the forged C’s real estate lease agreement as if it were a document duly formed, and exercised it.

Ⅱ It is true that the Defendant’s statement is somewhat unreasonable, such as the reason why the lessor and the lessee are replaced in the corresponding column of the contract of this case, and the reason why the lease contract was re-written on November 20, 2008, and the reason why the lease contract was re-written on November 20, 2008.

However, the following circumstances, which can be known by the record, are, i.e., the following.