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

The Defendant, as a business director of a limited partnership C in Kimpo-si, was a person operating the above company as a business director of the limited partnership C in Kimpo-si, and demanded the transportation worker to submit the details of payment of the reduced value-added tax in the Kimpo-si transportation administration division, and had the intent to arbitrarily submit the confirmation document in the name of D of transportation worker of the above company

1. On May 26, 2016, the Defendant forged a private document: (a) in the “C” of a limited partnership company located in Kimpo-si B, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si; (b) in the column of the content thereof, “D” in the form of D; and (c) in the column of the content thereof, the Defendant temporarily suspended from office on April 2016 due to a reason that he was working in the limited partnership company C; and (d) in the work for the year 2016 prior to the temporary retirement: (c) in the daily amount of KRW 175,700,000,000,000 for the amount of additional quarterly tax paid directly by the Company on May 26, 2016.

After indicating "," the name of the defendant was written on the side of the confirmation column at will.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a letter of confirmation in the name of D, a private document related to rights and obligations.

2. On May 2016, the Defendant, at the end of the foregoing investigation document, submitted a forged document as if it were a document duly formed, to the person in charge of the Kimpo-si administration and the tax amount to reduce value-added taxes belonging to his/her office, who could not know the forgery.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of written confirmation;

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime (the point of Article 231 of the Private Document), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of uttering of the above investigation document), and the selection of fines, respectively;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) reflects his mistake.

(b).