All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendants altered the real estate lease agreement for the purpose of exercising rights, and the fact that Defendant B had his father submit the modified real estate lease agreement and exercised the right to use it.

However, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the part of the Defendants by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The lower court rendered a judgment on the Defendants’ alteration of private documents 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendants on this part of the charges for the same reasons as the reasoning of its reasoning.

2) The lower court’s determination is justifiable in light of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.

① On May 208, Defendant B purchased KRW 1,500 square meters of the underground floor of D building at an auction procedure. At the time of October 27, 2013, Defendant B entered into a contract with the victim for the introduction of Defendant A, who was the president of D Building Management Office, to lease approximately 1,500 square meters of the underground floor of D building between the victim and the victim.

At the time of the conclusion of the above contract, Defendant B’s wife, who was in charge of D building on behalf of Defendant B, attended and affixed a seal to the lease contract.

② Defendant B purchased the above 2 and 3 floors underground of the building from the auction procedure to use it as a parking lot between the D Self-Governing Operation Association, which is a shopping mall management unit composed of the sectional owners of D Building around 2007, and agreed that the operation, management, etc. thereafter will be entrusted to the D Self-Governing Operation Association. As such, the above lease agreement was also kept by the D Building Management Office (the 36th page of the investigation record) rather than Defendant B. ③ Defendant B visited the D Building Management Office directly at around October 2013 to the margin of the lease agreement pursuant to an agreement between D Self-Governing Operation Association and the D Self-Governing Operation Association.”