A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On December 16, 2002, the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea in Newland by a compulsory deportation measure on August 31, 2017, after leaving the Republic of Korea in order to escape criminal punishment.

1. On September 1, 2002, the Defendant forged a private document by means of a computer in the office E office operated by the Defendant, on September 1, 2002, prepared a copy of the construction contract entered into by the client’s address, name, G, trade name (ju), H, name A, trade name, E, public mission department at the time of racing of the contractor’s address, address and racing of the contractor, L in the front of the construction site, the construction period in K, the total amount of the construction work 91 million won, the ordering person (ju), and the head of the said (ju) H’s seal impression, which was in possession by an irregular means, was placed adjacent to H’s trade name.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a contract for construction work under the name of H, a private document(state) which is related to rights and obligations.

2. On September 10, 200, around 11:00 on September 10, 200, the Defendant: (a) presented to the victim a forged construction contract under the name of H, such as paragraph (1), as if he/she had been duly formed, the Defendant had the victim execute construction work of Ulsan reconstruction apartment executed in P.

It is expected that the case cost of seven million won can be awarded a contract to the head of the Gu on the face of the week.

1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”

However, in fact, the contract for construction work, which the defendant presented to the victim, was forged as stated in Paragraph 1, and the defendant was not located in the location of the contractor of the Ulsan Reconstruction apartment that was implemented in P, so even if he received money from the victim under the name of the case cost, he did not have the intent or ability to receive the contract for construction work.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and is above the body of the victim.