beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. While maintaining a de facto marital relationship between B and B from around October 2012, the Defendant was aware of the fact that B received a loan of KRW 28 million as security of the East Sea Carryover D, which was currently residing without his own name, and thus, he was willing to bring about a claim for consolation money based on a de facto marital relationship against C and B, and accordingly, he was willing to file a move-in report with a person living in the residence registered as the householder, and to submit a certified copy of resident registration as evidence.
[Facts of Prosecution]
1. On October 5, 2018, the Defendant forged private document: (a) at the F Resident Center in the East Sea; (b) at the G community service center affiliated with B without obtaining the consent of the moving-in report; (c) while the Defendant did not know of such circumstances for the purpose of using it as evidence for civil procedure; (d) the head of the household at the present residence (director): B: the head of the household at the Dong-si Office in Gangwon-do; (d) the head of the household at the seat of Dong-si in Gangwon-do; (c) the head of the household at the seat of Dong-si; (d) the head of the household at the seat of Dong-si in Gangwon-do; (d) the head of the household at the seat of Dong-si; (e) the head of the household at the seat of Dong-si: H and second floor at Dong-si in Gangwon-do; (d)
Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged one copy of the move-in report in the name of B, which is a private document related to a certificate of fact.
2. The Defendant submitted a forged move-in report to the G officer of the community service center who is aware of the forgery at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) as if it were duly constituted, and exercised the report.
2. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial for judgment are the prosecutor who bears the burden of proof, whether it is a subjective or objective element (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12132, Nov. 25, 2010).