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

If the above fine is not paid, 50,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Punishment of the crime

From around September 2009, the Defendant leased and used 298.4 square meters of deposit money of 30 million won in monthly rent of 30 million won, and 3 million won in monthly rent from Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul. In the Defendant’s residence located in Songpa-gu, Seoul in 2010, the Defendant changed the above lease contract, which is a private document, by stating the monthly rent as 2 million won in the form of the lease contract written by stating the above land between C, D and the former as 2 million won, in the form of official column from the date of preparation of the lease contract written by stating it as 2 million won in monthly rent between C, D and the former, in a test color. On November 25, 201, the Defendant arbitrarily changed the above lease contract, which is a private document, to the Seoul Central District Court located in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, by filing an application for a provisional seizure on the above land’s right to claim the return of deposit expiration of the lease term.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H in part;

1. Real estate lease contract; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for a report on investigation (30 to 52 pages of investigation records);

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Article 234 and Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Article 231 of the relevant Act on the facts constituting an offense (the point of exercising an altered investigation document, the choice of fines);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The instant lease agreement, where the crime of altering or uttering private documents was not established, is a document owned by the defendant prepared and possessed by the defendant, and the alteration of the date of preparation is irrelevant to the validity of the document. Therefore, the crime of altering or uttering private documents is not established.

B. After preparing the instant lease agreement, the Defendant finds out that the date of preparation is a public figure, and write the date of preparation on the date of preparation on the paper.