2. Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

Defendant

A was appointed as the representative director of FF corporation on January 17, 201, and Defendant B was the representative director of the said corporation from May 2004 to January 17, 201. G was the de facto forfeited shareholder, the interest of the said F founder.

Since the establishment of the above company, the company has failed to support its business for a long time, and the company H seems to have the intent to purchase the land owned by the above company, and the Defendants and G promptly held a board of directors meeting and prepared the meeting minutes of the board of directors meeting on May 13, 201 with the purport to sell the pertinent real estate at the above company office.

1. Defendant A

A. On December 16, 201, Defendant A filed an accusation stating that “Around the Busan East-gu I apartment house, 101 Dongdong-gu, and 101 Dong 803, the corporate obligation relationship presented by J (G’s wife) was entered, the former corporate seal was affixed, and the director B’s former seal stamp was affixed on May 13, 201 when the head of the office was affixed, and the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting on May 13, 2011, when G forged and uses the minutes of the board of directors, which are private documents, with the former corporate seal impression and the director B’s fake seal affixed thereon, which would be punished by forging and using the same.”

However, G did not have forged the minutes of the board of directors.

Defendant

A on November 21, 201, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Eup located in the 6-lane of the village 6-lane, submitted the above complaint to the public service center of the Ulsan-gun Police Station, which had not been filed.

B. The Defendant A appeared at the court of Ulsan District Court 101, 55, as of October 18, 2012, and taken an oath, such as the forgery of private documents to G, etc. at the above court of 2012 high order of 1873, the lower court’s 2012 high order of 1873, and following the Defendant’s “(Presentation of the minutes of the board of directors with the 31st forged investigation record)” is essential to deem that the Defendant forged the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting on May 13, 201.

The prosecutor’s question “,” is the case.

The testimony "," and this is true on May 13, 201, "(the meeting minutes of the board of directors No. 32 of the investigation records)".