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

1. On July 11, 2011, the Defendant stated in the column for location of the real estate lease contract, which is a document not known to C, for the purpose of uttering at an infinite location, that is, “Infinite City D”, and stated in the column for the deposit, “infinite,00” in the column for the deposit for lease, and stated in the column for the contractual terms, “infinite,3, 27 March, 201,” and “24 months” in the column for the contractual terms, and forged one copy of the real estate lease contract under C with the seal affixed to C’s name.

2. Determination

A. On March 27, 2011, the summary of the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion is that the lease contract (142 pages, hereinafter "this case lease contract") dated March 27, 201 is not forged by the defendant but prepared with C's consent.

B. Determination C: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on March 5, 201 with the investigation agency from March 5, 201 to this court; and (b) signed a lease agreement with the Defendant on March 5, 201; and (c) consistently stated that the Defendant prepared the instant lease agreement separately from the Defendant on March 27, 2011.

In addition, as a result of the appraisal of the seal imprint on March 5, 201 and the name C affixed on the lease agreement and the instant lease agreement, it was proved that the seal affixed on each of the above contracts is highly likely to have been affixed by the different persons.

(Investigation Records 151 pages) In light of this point, it is doubtful that the defendant would not forge the instant lease contract.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, C’s statement is doubtful, and the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant forged the instant lease agreement without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1)