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

On February 2, 2016, while the Defendant planned a motor vehicle rental business against the U.S. military unit within the U.S. military unit, the Defendant agreed to divide profits according to the business when the contract is concluded after receiving the funds necessary for the process of contract implementation from B.

On July 27, 2016, the Defendant entered into a business contract with the representative D of the (State)C to receive the E Motor Vehicle Rental Business, and then, notified B of the other party to the contract when the contract is requested to deliver the contract, the Defendant was willing to prepare an English contract with the other party to the contract and deliver it to B, on the grounds that the other party to the contract would be excluded from the business.

1. On August 2016, the Defendant: (a) prepared an English contract, the same as “motor vehicle rental business-related contract,” written by the translation office located in a place of Seoul (hereinafter referred to as Seoul) and signed the contract, stating “F” in the column for the preparation of the contract.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a copy of the G name contract, which is a private document on the duty of rights.

2. On August 2016, the Defendant: (a) concluded a siren agreement with B, who is aware of the forgery at the I Office located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Ha and exercised the said investigation document; and (b) delivered the forged contract as if it was duly concluded.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness B, J and K;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. English contract prepared by the person under investigation in a false manner, and the car siren contract prepared by the suspect C (the party or witness who has exercised the above investigation document;

The credibility of the statements made by B, J, and K is recognized as not having any motive to intervene relatively consistent, specific, and different grounds.

In full view of all the evidence in the judgment, the defendant prepared a false contract and exercised it.