beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged and the Defendant: (a) purchased land equivalent to KRW 2,00,000 in amount to KRW 9,60,000; and (b) made an investment of KRW 2,50,000 on August 18, 2006; (c) on March 21, 2007, as to KRW 1,50,000,000 on the ground of land development costs, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing without any interest agreement with the creditor, C as the debtor; and (d) written a promissory note fair certificate as to KRW 30,00,000 on February 27, 2009.
Around January 11, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Suwon District Court for a payment order of KRW 300 million with respect to D, who is his/her husband and wife, to submit a copy of the said promissorysory note’s process to the Suwon District Court. On January 21, 2013, D, who filed an objection to D’s payment order, filed a civil lawsuit (2013 A. 21126) around September 27, 2013, the Defendant failed to submit a loan certificate from the full bench on the ground that he/she was required to submit the loan certificate, and the said lawsuit was closed on May 22, 2015, and the lawsuit was resumed on August 21, 2015, the Defendant submitted a copy of the said promissory note’s process to the Suwon District Court located in Suwon District Court via an agent on September 9, 2015.
However, on August 18, 2006, the loan certificate of KRW 250,000,000, which was submitted by the defendant, was written with the phrase "three copies per month for interest", and on March 21, 2007, the loan certificate of KRW 150,000,000,000 was written with the word "three" written with the word "three."
Accordingly, the defendant exercised the altered private document.
2. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not change the loan certificate of KRW 250 million on August 18, 2006 and the loan certificate of KRW 150 million on March 21, 2007 (hereinafter “each loan certificate of this case”), and there is no fact that the Defendant submitted the above loan certificate to the full bench, knowing that the change was made.
3. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the fact that each of the instant loans was altered.