The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant maintained a de facto marital relationship with D from around September 2012, since the fact that there was an event, such as the forgery of a private document, the event of a falsified investigation document, and an electronic record, and an electronic record of false entries, etc., and the Defendant prepared a marriage report after obtaining documents necessary for the marriage report from D by agreement with D to file a marriage report, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant, on June 15, 2014, had no insultd D in the second floor due to the relation that he had been residing in the first floor of G building around 18:30 on June 15, 2014, and there was no insultd by the Defendant. The same year

6. Although around 22.22. 20:30 around D did not make a statement as to this part of the facts charged, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the issue of this part is whether the Defendant obtained the consent of the marriage report from D as of June 12, 2014. In this case where there are conflicting arguments between the Defendant and D, it shall be determined by taking into account the indirect circumstances.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is rejected, on the ground that it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant did not obtain the consent of the marriage report from around June 12, 2014, on which the Defendant filed the marriage report with D.

① From September 20, 2012, the Defendant livedd with D in Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Building No. 202 from September 20, 2012, and July 9, 2013, owned D, respectively.

argument is asserted.

However, according to the transcript of the defendant and D's resident registration, the defendant transferred to another location at the time of the above argument.