The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: B (A) and 53 years of age.

Upon delegation from B on April 5, 2017, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C on the land located in Seowon-gu, Seowon-si (B’s share 3/7, Defendant’s share 2/7, and E’s share 2/7) and the shares of B and Defendant among the buildings, and paid the purchase price of KRW 245 million (including the purchase price of shares B), but did not pay the said purchase price to B.

Accordingly, on October 20, 2017, F, a creditor of B and large-scale, provisionally seized part of the claim for the purchase price against B pursuant to the above sales contract, and sent a written notification to C on November 8, 2017 that “to file a lawsuit claiming the purchase price of land of B” to C by mail, and C, around April 2018, demanded the Defendant to prepare for “the lawsuit claiming the purchase price”, “B shall delegate B to C the act, etc. concerning the receipt of the purchase price,” and to accept B’s seal.

On April 2018, the Defendant: (a) obtained a certificate of seal impression from B in the Dae-dong parking lot in front of the Dae-dong, Seo-gu, Seoul; and (b) forged two copies, a private document concerning rights and obligations to B, without notifying B of the contents of “written delegation” and “written confirmations” written by the Defendant; and (c) arbitrarily affixed B’s seal and affixed B’s seal thereto for the purpose of uttering.

On April 2018, the Defendant met C from Seo-gu, Seowon-gu, Seowon-gu, the residence of C, and exercised two copies of a private document, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations under the name B forged as above.

2. Summary of the defendant's assertion and facts of recognition;

A. The gist of the assertion is that there was no forgery of each of the above documents by the Defendant, such as affixing seals and seals directly on the “written delegation” and “written confirmations” at the time of the argument B, and thus, the crime of uttering of a prior investigation document is not established on a different premise.

B. The records of recognition are as follows.