beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. A summary of the facts charged: (a) around August 4, 2016, the Defendant prepared a written oath to the effect that “after the termination of a new commercial construction contract between A and AD, the remainder of the contract remains under the said contract, the Defendant shall receive 184 million won from C and shall complete the remainder after receiving payment from C; and (b) received the relevant construction contract from C; (c) however, the Defendant did not have been delegated by C to prepare the subcontract agreement for the said construction in the name of C.
A. On August 15, 2016, the Defendant prepared a private document for qualification reproduction: (a) subcontracted the steel frame construction to G operating the LAF in containers located at the construction site of the above E; (b) stated in the column for the supply and demand of the contract site as “H”; (c) stated C’s personal information and the Defendant’s agent’s personal information in the column for the contract site; and (d) indicated the Defendant’s signature stamp as “A contractor’s agent”; and (c) affix the Defendant’s seal to the J operating I at the same site as on December 2016; (d) written the “IJ” in the form for the supply and demand of the contract site; and (e) written the Defendant’s personal information and the Defendant’s agent’s personal information in the form for the contract site; and (e) written the Defendant’s seal in the signature stamp column as “A”.
Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising the above C's agent qualification, the Defendant prepared two copies of the contract for contract, which is a private document on rights and duties.
B. The Defendant, at the time, at the time and place of the foregoing paragraph (a) above, exercised private documents by delivering them to G and J respectively as if the contract was duly concluded.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to deem the Defendant C.