The judgment below

The conviction part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case that the lower court found guilty is the representative of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant concluded the instant initial contract with the owner of the instant apartment building (hereinafter “owner”), who is the representative of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), with respect to the implementation and construction of the reconstruction project of the instant apartment, and (1) the “Standard Contract for Construction Work (Change) in the name of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Agreement on March 28, 2007”) in the name of the owner of the instant apartment,” and (2) the “Agreement on March 29, 2007” (hereinafter “Agreement on Change”) and the “Agreement on Change in the Standard Contract for Construction Works (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “Agreement on Change in the Name of 29 March 29, 2007”), and (3) each of the instant two terms “each of the instant owners of the instant apartment units” (hereinafter “Attachment 208, each of the instant agreement on Payment”).

B. The Defendant attempted to acquire money in the name of the contractual money due to E’s repayment of loans from E such as I and the payment of design and supervision expenses from E’s owner by forging each of the instant documents and submitting them to the court as evidence, and attempted to acquire money through civil procedure.

2. The lower court found all of the facts charged guilty on the basis of the following circumstances, etc.

I et al., the owner of the instant building: (i) according to the instant modified contract, the letter of agreement, and the agreement, it is necessary to claim the subrogation payment for the loan of the financial institution for the reconstruction project of the instant apartment.