The defendant shall be innocent.

On October 2011, the Defendant: (a) on the service name column of “construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal entrustment contract form”, the Defendant: (b) on October 31, 2011, the name of “Ycheon-gu C removal Construction Work site”; (c) on the discharge site column; (d) on the settlement terms column; (e) on October 31, 201 to November 30, 201; and (e) on the consignment quantity and service amount column, “waste concrete, ton, 300, 700, 800, 1500, mixed concrete, ton, 50, 700, 700, 2700, 2700, 2700, 2700, 2700, 2000, 2700 name of truster; (e) on an individual, “Seoul” in the column; and (e) on the consignment’s phone number column; and (e) on the column column “E”.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged an entrustment contract for construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal services in the name of E, a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.

The reasons for the judgment of innocence

1. First, there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant directly prepared “construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal entrustment contract” as stated in the facts charged.

Rather, although the writing of the standard contract for construction works that the defendant's defense counsel is the document prepared by the defendant and submitted for comparison of the two documents are similar, the writing of the above contract does not coincide with the pen method of "Arain number 8" written in the above two documents, and it seems that the pen of the above contract does not coincide with the defendant's address index, and the body of the contract is not the body of the defendant.

2. 2. Next, if the above contract was not forged in order to recognize that the defendant prepared the above contract, it was forged prior to the entry of the defendant into the number of the defendants.