around March 2012, the Defendant: (a) received a request from Da to forgee D’s resident registration certificates of E and F, which were known to him; (b) at around that time, the Defendant forged the respective resident registration certificates of E and F with respect to each of the above E and F, by inserting his photograph attached to E and F’s respective resident registration certificates and attaching D’s photograph to E and F on the same page, upon request from Ga (this title H) at a non-place.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a resident registration certificate for E in the name of Pyeongtaek-si, a public document, in collusion with the above C and G, and a resident registration certificate for F in the name of the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the prosecution concerning C;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. A copy of the forged resident registration certificate;

1. Application of court rulings (Evidence of 114 pages)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 225 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent offenders, the sentencing range under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is determined based on the following factors: (a) where social risks are not realized because the ultimate objective of the mitigation area (4 to 1 year) (special mitigation) is not achieved, such as fabrication, alteration, etc. of official documents, etc. (the scope of recommending punishment). (b) In the event that the ultimate objective of the mitigation area (4 to 1 year) is not achieved (the decision of sentencing] the defendant has a history of having been sentenced four times of punishment for the same crime and the degree of the defendant's participation.