If the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, 50.

1. On September 26, 2012, the Defendants conspired with the Defendants to prepare an application form for cancellation of the building ledger and H’s personal information with respect to the Defendant B, working at the G Certified Judicial Office located in F in the Pakistan on September 26, 2012, and Defendant B instructed the Defendant B to prepare an application form for cancellation of the building ledger and H’s personal information. On September 26, 2012, Defendant B, using the other party’s own name at the above certified judicial office office, called “Seoul-do Pakistan-si I” in the site location, and in the column for cancellation, “The above building was applied for destruction because it did not exist on the above ground.” The owner or manager stated “H”, “J”, “K”, “I”, and “H’s name” in the name of Mari-si printed Office in the name of Mari-si. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23888, Sep. 26, 2012>

Accordingly, the Defendants forged the private document under H’s name for the purpose of uttering in collusion.

2. On September 27, 2012, the Defendants conspired to deliver to P an application for cancellation of a forged building register under the foregoing paragraph (1) as if they were duly formed, and exercised the same.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, P and B in each court;

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. The statement of H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to applications for cancellation of building ledgers;

1. Articles 228(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act as to the facts of the crime concerned, and Articles 229, 228(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of private documents) of the said Act; the selection of fines for each of the crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment determined for the uttering of a relevant investigation document heavier than the quality of crimes);

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

1. The background and method of the instant sentencing data asserted by the Defendants and their defense counsel for the reason of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order.