A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The exercise of an altered official document recorded in the facts charged for the alteration of a private document or the uttering of a falsified document shall be corrected ex officio as it is apparent that it is a clerical error.

On June 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the Chinese restaurant operated by the Defendant of the 1st underground floor in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-si; (b) in order to borrow money from D and to display a lease agreement with the repayment of the deposit money; (c) the representative director of E Co., Ltd., the injured party becomes the lessor; (d) the portion of the deposit money in the lease agreement with respect to the above Chinese restaurant that was concluded by the Defendant as the lessee, which indicated as “one million won in daily”, shall be corrected by using the pen to read as “three million won in this thousand won; and (d) the portion indicated as “Won 13,000,000” as “Won 23,000,000.”

Since then, the defendant borrowed money from D, and presented the altered lease contract to D without knowledge of the fact that it has been altered.

Accordingly, the defendant altered the lease contract, which is a private document on the name of the representative director E, F, rights and obligations of the victim E, and presented it to D and exercised it.

2. The Defendant, on June 22, 2012, displayed the lease agreement entered into with the victim D as modified in accordance with the foregoing Paragraph 1 at the Dong-dong-dong-gu Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si Uniform Office

On September 30, 2012, the Chinese house will be repaid until September 30, 2012.

“ ................”

However, the lease contract, which the defendant shown to the victim, was modified by the defendant as stated in the above Paragraph 1, and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the money properly even if he borrowed the money from the victim.

The Defendant received from the injured party KRW 10 million in his place.

In this respect, the defendant deceivings the victim to take property.