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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates 'C Child Care Center' in 202 Dong 104, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnamnam-si, and D has worked as infant care helpers from September 1, 2017 to September 29, 2017 at child care centers operated by the defendant.

1. The Defendant changed private documents: (a) drafted a computer around September 1, 2017, even though he/she was delegated or consented by D to alter the U.S. working agreement; (b) on September 1, 2017, he/she additionally printed the phrase “D” under the U.S. working contract term (including one month on probation) at the time of entering into a work contract with D; and (c) further printed the phrase “D” under the latter part of the contract term of the U.S. work; and (d) revised one copy of the contract term for infant care, a document related to rights and obligations.

Accordingly, the defendant modified the Chapter 1 of the Child Care Contract in the name of D, a private document related to rights and duties without authority for the purpose of uttering.

2. On October 2017, the Defendant, at the time of the alteration, submitted a copy of the Child Care Contract, which was modified as above, to the head of the Seo-gu Northbuk-gu, Seoan-gu, 8-gil 3, and the Director E of the Labor Supervisory Office in the Ministry of Labor, as if it was duly established.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the prosecution and the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Some of the written statements of the defendant;

1. Written response to a request for appraisal;

1. A copy of the labor contract [the above evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the following circumstances revealed thereby, i.e., ① the complainant has consistently stated the specific contents consistent with the facts constituting the crime since the police, to this court, while the defendant is not consistent because the specific contents of the prosecution against the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment are changed whenever investigated, and it is difficult for the complainant to understand them. ②