Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On September 23, 2017, the Defendant accepted a “C” restaurant located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, but filed a civil suit to the effect that the said D would return construction cost and premiums for the restaurant to the said D on the grounds that it was impossible to operate the business and that D would interfere with its business by failing to provide its business license, etc. Unlike the anticipated, the Defendant rescinded the contract. In the process of the lawsuit, the Defendant had been willing to submit a false estimate with a document evidencing the construction cost of the restaurant.

On February 28, 2018, the Defendant, using a computer, arbitrarily “Wedi or official mission: G: H, trade name: H, facsimile: J, representative: 15,800,000 won in supply value, value-added tax 1,580,000 won in total, construction cost 17,380,000 won in total,” and printed out the quotation under the name of H representative K, which is a private document on proof of fact, for the purpose of exercising the said quotation, and used it by presenting the quotation to the staff in charge of receiving a civil petition, who is aware of the forgery at the public service center of the Daejeon District Court located in Seo-gu Daejeon District Court on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. Application of written estimates and contract-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act and Articles 231 of the Criminal Act (the fact that Article 231 of the Act applies to private documents, the selection of fines), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the fact that the aforementioned investigation document is exercised, the selection of fines) concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of the Provisional Payment Order does not seem to have caused damage to K by the name holder due to the instant crime (Evidence 10 pages of evidence record), and consideration is given to the fact that D, the other party to the instant lawsuit for which the letter of estimate of the instant case was submitted, appeals against the Defendant