However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

[2016 Highest 2593]

1. The Defendant, on February 2, 2013, using a computer for the purpose of exercising it by C architect office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, without authority, has “D New Construction Project”, “B in the form of a standard contract for private construction works: D New Construction Project”, “In Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu D”, “Won 300,000,00”, “Won 30 billion won: September 20, 2012”, “resident address: Songpa-gu EF head of Songpa-gu, Seoul: Gu Residents’ Number: H: H: 2 floor in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (2 floor), and resident number: I, name, and name:

H affixed his seal.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged the standard contract for private construction works in H’s name, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. Around February 2, 2013, the Defendant issued a standard contract for private construction works that was forged to a public official in charge of the tax office with no knowledge of the name at the regional tax office located in 114, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, for the foregoing at the regional tax office.

Accordingly, the Defendant held a chapter 1 of the standard contract for private construction works under H, a forged private document.

Summary of Evidence

[2016 Highest 2593]

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. E-mail;

1. Standard contract for private construction works (H, A, 2016 high group 2593 investigation records of the case 5,27 pages);

1. Details concerning the claim for gender;

1. Standard contract for the design of a building (J, A);

1. A new forest permitted to be built;

1. The business of reporting any change of construction participants;

1. A letter of undertaking (2016 high order 4006 pages 39 of investigation records of the case) / [The Defendant was already aware that the Defendant had been subject to an actual inspection by the tax office two to three days before preparing a standard contract for private construction works as indicated in the judgment.

H’s consent to the preparation of the above contract

The argument is asserted.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., H, since the investigation agency, verify whether the above contract was prepared from the person in the relationship with the tax office on February 7, 2013.