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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Criminal facts

1. On May 20, 2016, the Defendant forged a private document: (a) at the C Office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (b) at the C Office located in the first floor, the Defendant prepared a labor contract with the Defendant from May 20, 2016 to May 19, 2017, stating that he would be paid KRW 200 million if he/she unilaterally was discharged from his/her office from C to May 19, 2017; and (c) affixed a seal to C’s employee reduction at his/her discretion on the back of the “C representative director D.” at the end.

Accordingly, the defendant, without authority, forged one copy of the labor contract under the name of C representative Director D for the purpose of exercising his right.

2. On July 31, 2017, the Defendant at the post office located in Samsung-dong, Samsung-dong, sent a certificate of claim for payment of KRW 200 million for retirement to E representative director of Samsung-dong, who is aware of the above forgery, and exercised the forged labor contract by attaching it as if it were a genuine document.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D, and some of the witness F, legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant (three times);

1. Statement made by the police with F (Comparison with suspects, complainants, etc.), and statement made by the police with regard to E (two times);

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to G verification, H e-mail statement, and seal imprint registration record card (C)

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime (the point of Article 231 of the Private Document), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of uttering of the above investigation document), and the selection of fines, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the Provisional Payment Order [the defendant was a representative director at the time when the F was F;

D directly obtaining approval from the Labor Contract of this case

In addition, F was present in this court as a witness and made a statement consistent with the defendant's argument.

However, D does not have the seal impression of corporation C, and therefore, D does not have it.