The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

1. Forgery of private documents;

A. On January 2012, the Defendant: (a) stated the names of E and F in the Delegation Book, and affixed the seals of E and F, respectively, without the fact that the Defendant was delegated by E and F with the authority to “verification of the absence of a final resolution, etc.” to the Plaintiff, at the “law firm D” office located in Seoul C&A, which was located in the early police station; and (b) placed the name of E and F voluntarily.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a letter of delegation of litigation in the name of E and F, a private document related to rights and obligations.

B. On October 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the H attorney-at-law office of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (200), and (b) at the office of Seocho-gu (Seoul), despite the absence of the fact that the Defendant was delegated by E and F with the authority to file an appeal for the “verification of the absence of a final resolution, etc.”; (c) despite having not been delegated by E and F with the authority to file an appeal for the “verification of the absence of a final resolution, etc.,” the Defendant, using the computer, had an employee in the name of the office

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the defendant forged a petition of appeal in the name of E and F, a private document concerning rights and duties.

2. Uttering a falsified investigation document;

A. The Defendant around January 10, 2012 set forth in the foregoing Section 1. A.

A. at the office of "law firm D" as described in paragraph 1. A.

In the same manner as the statement in the paragraph, a forged litigation delegation letter was delivered to an employee in the name of the above office who is aware of the forgery and exercised it as if it was a document duly formed.

B. On October 18, 2012, the Defendant, at the Suwon District Court located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the above 1-B.

The petition of appeal forged by the same method as the statement in the port was submitted as if it was a document which was duly formed to the employee of the Suwon District Court who was aware of the forgery.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol of suspect examination of the police officer regarding I;

1. Each police officer to E and J.