Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was a person who served as the head of the parent business in C, and was established and operated by the corporation D.

1. On January 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) stated “a confirmation letter” in the title column at an insular place; and (b) expressed that “C” in the content column is jointly and severally liable with “D” in relation to the performance of the contractual term “D” (including the incomplete performance of the contractual term “D”) with “D” (including direct and indirect damages) in cases where damage (including direct and indirect damages) is incurred to code,” in relation to the damages arising out of the table between “D” and “D” (hereinafter “D”).

"At the same date, on January 16, 2012," the letter "CF Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul, manufacturing Dos, retail, hair, electronic trade" was written in the column of the above verification, and the letter "on the part of the Department of C, a private document, written in the name of C, a private document on rights and obligations," was written in the column of the above verification, stating that "on the part of the Department of C, Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Do, retail, mother-based goods, and electronic trade" was affixed with a seal imprint "on the part of the Department of C," and written in the column of the above verification.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place of the event of the above investigation document, delivered the forged confirmation document to an employee of the Copin who is aware of this fact, as if it were the document duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A complaint;

1. Investigative report (Attachment of judgment) (the defendant is merely an abuse of authority by a person who has the authority to prepare a document and thus does not constitute a crime of forging a document;

However, in light of the method of the custody of corporate seal imprint, the purpose of delegation, the intention of the delegating person, the transaction practice, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the document preparation by the defendant is a forgery that deviates from the delegated authority.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of Article 231 of the Private Document) and Article 234 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts.