The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

The summary of the Defendant’s appeal grounds (misunderstanding of facts) as to the forgery of a private document and the use of a falsified document among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have forged one copy of the lease agreement (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”) under the name of D, E, and F (hereinafter “D, etc.”) as stated in the facts charged.

As to the theft and intrusion of each of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant continued to possess the building indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant building”) from 1998 to the date, and there was no fact that the Defendant transferred the key from the first to the fifth floor of the instant building to the fifth floor on December 2012 to H employees of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).

Therefore, the Defendant had access to the instant building that he/she possessed, and there was no intrusion on the first, fourth, and fifth floors of the instant building around June 24, 2013 and around December 14, 2013, as stated in the facts charged, and there was no fact that he/she stolen the keys owned by the Defendant, such as D, around June 24, 2013.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous by mistake.

The Prosecutor’s summary of the facts charged in the instant case applied in the appellate trial for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the date of the crime of forging a private document and exercising a document for the investigation was changed from “ around June 7, 2011,” to “the early June 201,” and the instant court permitted the amendment.

In doing so, this only takes the form of Amendments to Bill of Indictment, and its substance constitutes correction of the indictment, and accordingly, the subject was changed to the extent that it affects the defendant's exercise of his right to defense.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed ex officio on the grounds of changes in the indictment and shall be judged on the corrected facts.

The defendant is the owner of the eight-story building (the building in this case) located in Asan City, and the victim D, E, and F are the above building on January 13, 2010.