Defendant

B introduced Defendant A to D, and the facts of Defendant A and the above E were recruited to engage in disguised marriage without the intention of marriage.

Accordingly, on August 11, 2011, the Defendants prepared a false marriage report as if Defendant A had the intention of marriage with E, and submitted it to the public official in charge of not knowing it.

Accordingly, on August 11, 201, the above public official who is aware of the fact was computerized inputs to establish the marriage relationship between Defendant A and E, and exercised it by having him keep the same public electronic records as the family relation register in which the above false facts are recorded.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to make a false report to the public official to record false facts in the same electronic record as the original copy of the notarial deed, and exercised it by making it available.

Maz.

1. The Defendants and their defense counsel’s arguments and their defense counsel asserted as follows.

In other words, Defendant A reported the marriage with the intention to maintain the actual marital relationship with Defendant A, and Defendant B also argued that there is a genuine marital intent with Defendant A and E.

2. First of all, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial lies with the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 200Do1568 delivered on July 28, 2000, 2000Do4946 delivered on February 9, 2001, and 2005Do47 delivered on February 24, 2006, etc.).