Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is to be disclosed to the Defendants.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant B is a movable development company and a construction executor (State) D, and Defendant A is the representative of the above company, and the Defendants are married couple.

1. At around July 2009, the Defendants conspired with each other, at the site office of the above company located in Gyeonggi-gun E and 12 parcels, to exercise the document, stating that “I will agree to use FC for the purpose of obtaining permission for the occupancy and use of the site indicated in the above 3. Road occupation and use for the purpose of obtaining permission for the occupancy and use of the site for the occupancy and use of the road,” and subsequently, I will enter F in the column of “Road User” and, at the same time, affix the F F’s seal to the road occupation and use for the purpose of obtaining permission for the occupancy and use of the road. At around November 2009, the Defendants forged one copy of the letter of consent for the joint use of the site for the road occupation and use of the private document in the name of F, which is a private document related to rights and duties, and exercised it by the public official in charge of obtaining permission for the occupancy and use of the forged site.

2. At the above company’s site office around November 2009, the Defendants conspired to prepare a document “written consent to use land of the existing permitted person” using a computer for the purpose of uttering, and stated “the consent to use land of the existing permitted person” in the column of “land user”, and then use a document to enter F in the “land user” column, affix a seal of F’s name at will, thereby forging one copy of the written consent to use land of the original permitted person in the name of F, a private document related to rights and obligations, and then use it by delivering the forged written consent to use land to the public official in charge of not knowing the forgery in the above company’s site office.

3. The Defendants conspired, around 2009, prepare a document stating the “written consent” by means of a computer for the purpose of exercising at the above company’s site office.