The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The main point of the grounds of appeal is that the complainant consented to the change of the due date and the revision of the agreement for compensation for delay, if the defendant revised some of the phrases of the statement of the loan for consumption in the name of the complainant of this case (hereinafter “the agreement of this case”).

Therefore, even though the defendant did not establish the crime of altering private documents and uttering of private documents, the court below convicted the defendant, which is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. The facts charged in this case

A. A. Around September 11, 2009, the Defendant for alteration of private documents and D prepared two copies of the monetary loan agreement for consumption with respect to the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 45 million from the F Tax Accountants Office located in Seongbuk-gu, Sung-gu, Sung-gu, Sung-gu, Seoul, with a view to keeping each copy of the agreement.

The Defendant, at the above date, signed and sealed two parts of the Loan Agreement on Money Loan with D and the above agreement on money loan with each other at the same time and place, violated two horizontal lines on the part in the column for the loan period of the Loan Agreement on Money Loan with the Defendant’s possession by using an authorized-type pen. The column for damages for delay set forth in the column for damages “B shall compensate for the overdue interest at the rate of 30% per annum for the amount of repayment in the event B fails to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and shall be calculated every day in this case.”

Accordingly, the Defendant modified one copy of the monetary loan agreement in the name of D, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

B. Around January 3, 2012, the Defendant presented a written agreement on a loan for consumption altered as described in the foregoing paragraph to a court employee who could not know his/her name without knowledge of the fact at the public service center of the Seoul Eastern District Court located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as if he/she were duly formed.

3. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court duly admitted and examined the evidence.