The defendant will give public notice of the summary of the decision.

1. Facts charged;

가. 사문서위조 피고인은 2015. 8. 10. 대전 중구 B건물 사무실에서, 그곳에 비치되어 있던 임대차계약서 용지에 검정색 필기구를 사용하여 임대할 부분란에 "3층 C호", 보증금란에 "貳百萬", 존속기간란에 "2015년 8월10일, 2016년 8월 9일, 임차인 주소란에 "대전 유성구 D아파트 E호", 주민번호란에 "F", 전화란에 "G", 성명란에 "H" 이라고 기재한 뒤 그 이름 옆에 임의로 사인을 하였다.

As a result, the Defendant forged one copy of the real estate lease agreement in the name of H, a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.

B. The Defendant, at the same time and at the same place, delivered a forged lease agreement as if it were a document duly formed, to the J that represented B building I on behalf of the lessor of the said building at the same time and place.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). B.

The main issue of this case is whether the defendant has forged the lease contract by entering H in the name column of the lessee of the lease contract in the name column of the lower part, and signing in the name column of the lower part.

C. According to the records, there may be suspicions that the defendant would not use the lease contract with forgery, but considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is alone.