공전자기록등불실기재등
Defendants are not guilty.
1. The summary of the facts charged of this case, together with F, G, H, and F, suggesting that the defendant A will give consideration to Korean men who will marry with Chinese women, and that the introduction would give consideration to the introduction. The defendant A introduced G to F around the end of June 2009. On July 20, 2009, the defendant A entered the Republic of Korea with China on the departure of F, G, and H's apartment located in the Chinese roadside G in the Chinese roadside-si where the defendant was located, and came to a disguised marriage by having G and the defendant B met.
1. On September 11, 2009, the public electromagnetic records G was submitted to a public official in charge of name in Jung-gu, Seoul, the Jung-gu Office in Jung-gu, Seoul, and the fact that it was a disguised marriage with Defendant B under the good offices of F and H, a disguised marriage hub, under the good offices of F and H, which was a disguised marriage hub, but was a false marriage with Defendant B, along with a false marriage-related documents in the husband column and in the wife column, submitted to the public official in charge of name in charge.
Accordingly, the public officials in charge of marriage reporting who are not aware of the fact were computerized into the family relation register of G that G was married with Defendant B.
Accordingly, in collusion with F, G, and H, the Defendants made a false report to the public official to record false facts in the same electronic records register as the original of a notarial deed.
2. At that time, Defendants, F, and G had the above family relation register recorded false facts as described in paragraph (1) in the Jung-gu Office around that time.
Accordingly, the Defendants, in collusion with F, G, and H, exercised the same electronic records register as the original of the notarial deed recorded false facts.
2. However, there are G’s statements in the investigation agency and this court, statements in the investigation agency of Defendant A, and certificates of deposit transaction as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case. According to this, G is Defendant A, F, and H.