The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant had the resident number and seal of the complainant with the intent to agree with the complainant C, which is not living together with the complainant C, by forging the agreement to divide the property, and deliver it to D.

On May 2, 201, the Defendant forged private documents shall prepare this agreement on the condition that the property division agreement, which is a document that the complainant is unaware of, for the purpose of exercising the E 109.203 203 Do, will be made on the condition that the property division agreement, which is a document that is a document that is a document that is not known of, the complainant, will be registered for inheritance in the South-Nam C1. When disposing of the above goods, the head of the claimant for the registration of the property shall enter the agreement that would distribute a certain amount of money to, and at the same time, the proceeds of the sale generated from the sale of the goods, at the same time with the consent of, the son, who is a punishment for the property division, the following: ".................." stated the division amount in the form of division, "F,00,000", stating "C" in the resident number column, affixed the name "C", and forged one division agreement under C under the name.

B. The Defendant, at the same place, delivered a forged property division agreement to D who is aware of the forgery, and exercised it as if it had been duly formed.

2. On July 18, 2013, the judgment C sent to D a content-certified mail to the effect that “the instant agreement for division of property has been completely prepared, there is no choice but to do so” (Evidence 3), and D brought a lawsuit against D seeking payment of KRW 200 million under the instant agreement for division of property against D, and decided in favor of D on July 4, 2014 (Evidence 1) that “C is declared to pay KRW 200 million and its delay damages to D” (Evidence 1). In light of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the fact that D’s favorable decision was rendered to D (Evidence 1), it is difficult to believe that the statement made by C’s court and investigative agency as deemed consistent with the above facts charged and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

If so, the above.