logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.09.07 2017고정2177
사문서위조등
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, a broker, entered into a business agreement with B to operate a real estate brokerage office around August 201, and the Defendant had to act as a person, a license, and a business registration necessary for real estate brokerage business. B leased the 5 million won deposit from E, a monthly rent of KRW 170,000,000 from the Daegu-gu Dong-gu, Seoul, to use it as an office of a real estate brokerage office around August 18, 2011.

A. As the Defendant requires a real estate lease agreement that has leased a real estate brokerage office under the name of the Defendant to register a business operator at the Dong-gu tax office, the Defendant forged a real estate lease agreement under the name of the lessor F and E with intent to forge the real estate lease agreement. On September 201, B had B, for the purpose of exercising at the above D 1st floor on the real estate location column, “GG in Daegu-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Da1 commercial building, deposit money, KRW 170,000 per month,” and the rent amount, “H” in the resident registration number column, “F” in the resident registration number column, “JI” in the name column, and “E” in the resident registration number column, “J and name column,” and affixed the Defendant’s seal on the name of F and E on his own.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged one copy of the real estate lease agreement in F and E name.

B. On September 201, the Defendant: (a) submitted a forged real estate lease agreement to a fence who was aware of the forgery at the Dong-gu tax office located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu; and (b) held the said investigation document as if it were genuine.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant had forged and exercised the real estate lease agreement.

It is difficult to see otherwise.

arrow