When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant was a person working as a person at C School Extension Works site.

1. For the purpose of exercising authority, on March 7, 2013, the Defendant entered, without authority, the tax invoice “(34,909,09,091) stored on computers in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office for the Construction Site of C Schools” in the column of 34,490,909 won on March 7, 2013, and the item column in the column of “379,400,000” in the item column, and forged the tax invoice under the name of the supplier, the representative of the E company, which is a private document for the rights and obligations, without authority, for the purpose of using the E company’s name seal affixed on the E company name. In addition, the Defendant instructed F, the agent at the construction site of the above construction site, to forge the tax invoice on April 5, 2013 and around April 10, 2013 by forging each tax invoice.

2. The Defendant presented three tax invoices forged as provided in the preceding paragraph to the public official of the tax office, who is not aware of the circumstances through G, the head of the Cschool Administration Office at the time of the above date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Each police suspect examination protocol (including the part concerning the statement of H and F) against the accused;

1. Application of each tax invoice statute;

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;