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

The defendant is a person who naturalization from his/her nationality to the nationality of the Republic of Korea.

On September 27, 2004, while the Defendant married with D who is a Korean national on April 24, 2009, the Defendant filed an application for naturalization on the ground that he/she was married with E who is a Korean national on April 24, 2009 and gave birth to his/her child F on February 2, 2013, on March 17, 2011, on the ground that he/she maintained a normal marital life with D. who is a Korean national.

Since April 2013, the Defendant submitted documents, such as the local family register, to the investigator of the above immigration control office in charge of the fact-finding survey on the applicants for nationality at the immigration control office of the Changwon, in Bangladesh, in which E and his children F are not registered.

In addition, on July 8, 2014, the Defendant obtained permission for naturalization as “the spouse of a foreigner” of the Republic of Korea.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of public officials in charge of naturalization by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A copy of the application for visa issuance (14-18 pages of investigation records), a copy of the invitation letter (19 pages of investigation records), a copy of the identity guarantee certificate (21 pages of investigation records), a copy of the marriage-related certificate (22-23 pages of investigation records), a copy of the report on the status quo of applicants for nationality (28-29 pages of investigation records), each copy of the D marriage-related documents (49-55 pages of investigation records), and each copy of the reported documents (90-109 pages of investigation records) filed by domestic government offices related to E marriage, respectively (20-109 pages of investigation records).

1. Article 137 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The defendant's defense counsel asserts to the purport that the defendant's responsibility is excluded because it is impossible to expect the defendant to make a statement about the mixed facts because there is no possibility of expectation of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order.

However, it is true.