The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On July 2015, the Defendant, who was in charge of the chairman of the election countermeasure committee at the time of Gunpo-si, discovered a violation of the management status of the above apartment at the time of Gunpo-si, resulting in the discovery of a violation of the management status of the apartment, and the imposition of the fine for negligence on the above apartment, sentenced the victim D, the representative of the occupants, to dismiss the said apartment.

A. On November 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around November 5, 2015, at the office of the representative meeting of occupants of the above apartment, the election management commission meeting, including the Defendant, E, etc. attended; and (b) prepared minutes signed by the above E, etc.

The Defendant stated that the minutes completed around that time, using the color pen, “the removal of the president from office shall be carried out by the vote pursuant to Article 20 of the Code because 120 residents agreed to do so,” and continued to state that “the vote vote for the dismissal of the president is delegated to the chairperson in the column of the decision for deliberation.”

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a copy of the minutes of the committee for election management in the name of E, which was jointly signed by the above E, etc., the private document concerning rights and duties.

B. On November 2015, the Defendant, at the seat of the above apartment management office, etc., submitted the minutes of the committee for the management of forged election to the management office employees, military public officials, etc. who are aware of such forgery.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of forging a private document to determine the part on the charge of the charge of facts charged, the term "the above Article" refers to the preparation by a person who is not authorized to prepare a document under the name of another person, and the so-called intangible forgery, in which a person with authority to prepare a document violates the truth, is not subject to punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3738, Nov. 8, 2002, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, this case is deemed to be subject to punishment.

In this case, the defendant is at the time and time stated in this part of the facts charged.