A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, as an operator of Company D, submitted a tax invoice issued by Company G to the first instance trial division, claiming that the payment for goods and other claims (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2012Kadan43500) should be offset on the ground that: (a) there is a serious defect in the transmission wind season supplied by Company F, thereby requesting the work of re-designing to H; and (b) the cost of painting KRW 6,050,000 should be offset.

However, the above Tribunal did not accept this part of the claim, and the defendant appealed to the Incheon District Court in order to forge the certificate in the name of G Company H and submit it to the court.

The Defendant, around November 2013, at the office of the company D located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I to “Personal Information of the Confirming” column by using a computer network protocol at the office of the company D located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, is “G company (Registration Number J), K, Ha, Ha, L, Fax M.” In the column of the main text, “1. our country,” once again confirms that (a) for the transmission wind at the construction site of the large construction site of the large construction site requested by D, the construction of the large construction site of which was ordered to re-samped, (b) for the whole unsampers of the large construction site of the large construction site, (c) the construction of the large construction site of which was ordered to re-samped, (d)D employees’ attendance and joint work, and (d) the implementation/construction of the transmission wind

2. After completion of the painting work on the above painting, us issued a tax invoice (for the claimed item: the invoice of the master plan) as of 26 July 2013, us claimed the amount of 6,050,000 (including the value added tax) and re-verification that the full amount of the price was paid from D.

“On November 7, 2013,” the lower end entered and printed the “the foregoing confirmation person,” and then affixed the name plate of the H representative of the G Company, which was arbitrarily rejected in the verification column, and affixed the official seal of the representative of the G Company at will.

Accordingly, the defendant without authority for the purpose of exercising his authority.