Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant wanted to be employed in entertainment establishments in the U.S., but it is not reasonable to issue a visa in a normal way. On March 201, 201, the defendant asked D, who is a visaer, to be 4,000 U.S. dollars and to be issued a visa.

On April 1, 2011, the Defendant filed an application for visa issuance with a consul whose name is not known at the Embassy of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-ro 32 in Korea, accompanied by a forged “E” certificate, etc. of his/her service in the name of “E” as instructed by D, and made a false statement to the United States for the purpose of raising English language.

Accordingly, the defendant exercised a forged certificate of employment, and interfered with the issuance of the U.S. Embassy as a deceptive scheme.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Translation (except for the part concerning the statement of the accused);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (attached to a certificate of income, etc.), and report internal investigation (attached to a new statement of account, etc.);

1. Relevant Article 234 of the Criminal Act, Articles 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314 (1) and 313 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime, and the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The portion not guilty under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention in a workhouse;

1. The summary of the facts charged asked D, who want to be employed by entertainment establishments in the U.S., to receive a visa in a normal way, and requested D, who is a visaer, around March 201, to receive a visa and to issue a visa.

Around that time, D arbitrarily prepared a certificate of employment in the name of E to the effect that “A is in office under E” by an unsound method and sent it to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with D, forged a certificate of employment of “E”, a private document for the purpose of uttering.

2. The records can be recognized by judgment.