Defendants shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is in office, and Defendant B is the sales member of the F agency of both motor vehicles in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and Defendant C is the company members.

The Defendants conspired to purchase a vehicle by forging documents even though Defendant A was not eligible to purchase a vehicle at the cost of the vehicle.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

A. On April 27, 2012, the Defendants forged private documents: (a) at the agency of two vehicles in the middle-gu Seoul Central Government G (H apartment) 1st floor; (b) at the agency of the two vehicles in the middle-gu Seoul Central Government G (H apartment); (c) as a title stating, Defendant B’s “re-issuance Certificate” in blank using the computer in accordance with the above public offering, Defendant B: (a) prepared a certificate of employment with the content that “it is proved that Defendant A was in office in the K with the representative located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu I from October 1, 2011 to his name; and (d) affixed the J seal that was located in advance in the name of the representative

As a result, the Defendants forged a letter of “re-issuance” in the name of J, a private document concerning rights and duties for the purpose of uttering in collusion.

B. The Defendants, in collusion, submitted a forged “re-issuance Certificate” to the employee in charge of not knowing the false fact at the same time and place, and used the forged “re-issuance Certificate” as if they were duly constituted.

2. Defendant A and C’s co-principal defendants were not entitled to purchase a vehicle in the same place and place, without a certain occupation, and even if they were to purchase a vehicle in the part of the vehicle, they did not have the intent or ability to pay the installment. However, as described in paragraph (1), Defendant A, as if Defendant A was in office and could normally pay the installment, was made under the victim’s name as Defendant A would have been able to normally pay the installment.