The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant married with D on November 20, 2006; (b) on April 2014, he/she married with D; (c) but (d) was divorced from July 2014.

On November 4, 2014, the Defendant prepared a false complaint against D through an attorney-at-law office who may know of the circumstances, with the intention of having D take criminal punishment against D when D was provisionally seized by an attorney-at-law office located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, with the aim of having D leave the house under the name of the person related to the workplace of the defendant.

A In the statement of the complaint, although the complainant did not delegate the establishment of A's financial guarantee form to the defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant D, he forged the financial guarantee form under the name of the complainant and submitted it to the middle and high-ranking trader and exercised it. Thus, the defendant defendant defendant shall be punished for forging private documents and uttering it. The defendant shall hear the statement that "A shall submit a financial guarantee form with the defendant as a financial guarantee form from D around April 13, 2012, and provided D with the certificate of seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, and certificate of taxation (tax payment) by item.

Nevertheless, around November 7, 2014, the defendant submitted a written complaint to the police officer who is unable to know his name in the Incheon Jung-gu Office of Public Service of the Incheon Jung-gu Police Station, which was in the 237 Incheon Jung-gu, and rejected D.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant permitted D to prepare a statement of financial guarantee under the name of the Defendant.

The following circumstances recognized by this court based on the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., D confessioned that it prepared a financial guarantee document without the consent of the defendant at the time of the investigation by the police, and reversed the statement that the fact was investigated by the prosecutor, and then, it did not have been allowed to attend the prosecutor's office again.