Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the day this judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendants are above one year each.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A was the chairperson of Gwangju Metropolitan City D with the fourth floor in Gwangju Mine-gu from January 2017 to June 30, 2020, and Defendant B served as the managing director from February 2016 to August 2020.

Defendant

At around 10:00 on January 24, 2019, A, while holding the D General Assembly in the foregoing D Office in 2019, A directed Defendant B to sign the F and E as if he were present at the General Assembly even though there was no fact that the D General Assembly was present at the E and F General Assembly. According to the direction above, Defendant B, by means of computer, entered “E and F” into the sex name column and printed out “E and F”, and then arbitrarily written his signature in the signature column of E and F, and submitted the signature signature form to an employee who is not aware of the forged fact in the Gwangju Metropolitan City Sports Association, and exercised it.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to forge another person's signature and exercised it for the purpose of exercising it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes with signatures of D representatives also in the minutes of the General Assembly in 2019 and Gwangju Department;

1. The Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 239(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of signing the company’s signature) and Articles 239(2) and 239(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of exercising the signature of the company in question);

1. Commercial concurrent defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants who are subject to aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37 and Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants under suspended execution: The Defendants’ reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are against the recognition of the instant crime; the fact that there was no substantial damage caused by the instant crime; Defendant A was punished for the same kind of crime or was sentenced to a suspended sentence or a heavier punishment; Defendant B did not have any history of punishment; Defendant B did not have any history of punishment; the statutory penalty of this case only prescribes imprisonment.