except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Around September 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) concluded construction works to build a new multi-household house on the land B and the Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon; and (b) concluded construction works under the name of D Co., Ltd., a construction company operated by the Defendant.

On May 10, 2017, the Defendant entered into a subcontract agreement with E with respect to external finishing construction works of the above multi-household housing, and drafted a “standard subcontract agreement for construction works”. At his/her own discretion, the Defendant entered “G” in the column of “F” and “G” in the name of the representative director with a black-type pen, and affixed his/her seal on the name of G in his/her name.

Accordingly, the defendant revised the criminal facts in the name of document to the extent that he/she does not infringe on the defendant's right of defense in light of the F evidence record, which is a private document about the right and duty without authority.

One copy of the "standard subcontract agreement for construction works" in the name was forged.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as indicated in paragraph (1), issued a forged “standard subcontract agreement for construction works” to E employee H who is aware of the forgery and exercised the same as if it were duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (the second substitution);

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each investigation report (recording files submitted by the President of the EH and hearing statements by witnesses H);

1. According to the following circumstances, a copy of the standard subcontract agreement for construction works, and a copy of the standard subcontract agreement for construction works submitted by the suspect [the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court], the defendant is deemed to be a standard subcontract agreement for construction works, which is a private document (hereinafter “instant contract”) without authority, as stated in the judgment below.

....