The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the alteration of private documents and the exercise thereof, the Defendant sent a lease agreement in which C was added to the lessee column to J, the agent of the said lessor, in order to obtain a lessor’s permission, and thereafter, C did not register the business in its own name, unlike the first demand of B.

On the other hand, it is merely a case where the parties concerned no longer use the lease contract added C as a son, and as such, the Defendant did not intend to alter the lease contract (hereinafter referred to as “the lease contract of this case”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and there was no intention to exercise the changed contract (hereinafter referred to as “the lease contract of this case”).

B. On May 10, 2015, the Defendant, at the time of the lower judgment, prepared an additional lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) on May 10, 2015 in order to avoid the charge that is imposed on a person responsible for sewerage, which is imposed on the building as indicated in the lower judgment. In that process, the consent of the JJ, a lessor’s agent, was obtained, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to forge and exercise the instant lease agreement No. 2.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion on the alteration of private documents and the uttering thereof 1) Since the crime of forgery or alteration of private documents in the relevant legal doctrine refers to a case where a person who is not authorized to prepare a private document prepares a document by gathering another person's name, if the nominal owner explicitly or impliedly consented in preparing and amending the private document, it does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of private documents. Meanwhile, even if the nominal owner did not have actually consented at the time of the act, and if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act, the crime of forgery or alteration of private documents is not established.

(2) the title holder.