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

The Defendant was aware that the articles of incorporation and minutes of the indictment were forged among the Category D D (Preparation of November 30, 1989).

Nevertheless, on April 2013, the articles of incorporation and minutes of the above articles of incorporation were submitted to the Korean Bar Association in So-gu, So-gu, So-called So-called So-called, So-called, So-called "Seoul District Court" (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul")

Judgment

1. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in the criminal trial against which the articles of incorporation and minutes of the instant clan have been forged, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is doubtful to be guilty.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, first of all, we examine whether the articles of association and minutes of a meeting (hereinafter “instant clans and minutes”) among D species of November 30, 1989 were forged.

The evidence as shown above is the F's statement of the police statement about F, the statement of the witness F's statement in the second protocol of the trial, G, and H's each confirmation statement, the statement of the facts, the statement of the complaint, the recording of the recording, etc.

However, the F’s statement is nothing more than that of the direct witness of the situation at the time, but also that of G, H, and H’s statement. Each of the statements of G and H is not made by investigation agency or court but in the form of a fact confirmation upon F’s request by the F, etc. It was not made by the attendance at investigation agency or court, and it is difficult for them to believe that they are in conflict with the clan of this case as they are in the position of receiving compensation for the Defendant and the land related to the instant case raised by the clan of this case.

The statement of the I(J) stated in the record of recording is that it is not a memory of the meeting at the time.

On the other hand, however,