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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:00 on September 20, 201, the Defendant: (a) called “F” at the D office located in the Gui-si, Seoul Building 908; (b) forged a motor vehicle transfer certificate to the effect that G Co., Ltd. transferred H buses to D Co., Ltd.; (c) submitted it to the Association; and (d) asked F to use it for forgery and use of documents; (d) required F to prepare a car transfer certificate to the effect that G transferred the chartered bus to D Co., Ltd. on the same day at the E office located in the Si of Si of Si of Si of Taesung-si, the Defendant sent it to G Co., Ltd.; and (e) required F to affix one copy of the vehicle transfer certificate in the name of G Co., Ltd. and sent it to I Co., Ltd. by facsimile on the same day.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising the F, the Defendant forged one copy of a motor vehicle transfer certificate in the name of G Co., Ltd., a private document on rights and duties, and abetted the F to exercise it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness F and K;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and F by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement of L/M;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a motor vehicle transfer certificate;

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 31 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, 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. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant, on the ground of conviction of the provisional payment order, only asked F to purchase an insurance policy, and that there was no fact that the vehicle transfer certificate in the name of G was forged.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by each evidence of the ruling, that is, the purchase of insurance for the bus of this case, shall be deemed to have been done according to the necessity of the defendant, and the defendant shall also be the F.D.