The defendant is not guilty. The summary of this judgment shall be announced publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was a person engaged in real estate business, and was de facto marital relationship with the victim D at the victim D’s residence in Gyeonggi-gun C from May 2009 to April 2013.

A. The Defendant forged a false real estate lease agreement, submitted it to the public official in charge of the E-Myeon office, and received a fixed date.

On December 15, 2009, the Defendant stated in the form of “real estate lease agreement” used for the ordinary real estate brokerage business at the above residence in the form of “real estate property,” “Seoul-do Seocheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and one pen,” “Yancheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and one pen” in the column of security deposit, “Yancheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do (30,000,000),” and the name and personal details of the victim in the lessor column as arbitrarily receiving the victim’s name and affixed the seal of the victim who was arbitrarily affixed to the name of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant forged the lease contract of the above real estate (house) in the name of the victim, a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of exercising the right.

B. (1) On February 19, 2010, the Defendant submitted a forged real estate lease agreement as stated in the foregoing paragraph (a) to a public official under the name in the name of the E-Myeon Office of the Dong-gun Office of the Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, to enter the forgery in the fixed date, and exercised it.

(2) On January 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a written application for payment order to a public official in charge who is aware of forgery at the court of the Dongcheon-gun District Court in the Dongcheon-gun, Seocheon-do, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (376, Seocheon-do), as stated in the above A. A, as if the agreement on the lease of a forged victim’s real estate (former three) was duly formed, and exercised it as if it was a document duly formed.

(c)

The Defendant, who attempted to commit fraud, applied for the payment order as above at the time and place specified in the above B. (2), and the Defendant did not enter into a lease agreement with the victim, and paid KRW 30 million as the lease deposit.