A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 1, 2014, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) in the column for personal information of the reporter of the site for the report on closure of business by means of a computer, the head of the office E, without authority, for the purpose of exercising his/her authority, shall be deemed F, business operator’s name (name of a juristic person): G, name (name of a representative): H, telephone number: I, location of the place of business: “The date of closure of the business in the column for the reported contents; “The date of closure of the business” on December 31, 2013: “The date of discontinuation of the business in the column for the reason of closure;” “The reporter’s business failure” on December 31, 2013; and (b) output the private document to be “H” on the reported column, and was rejected in advance on the name of H.

H’s painting was stamped.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged one copy of the closure report in H’s name, a private document on the proof of facts.

2. On September 1, 2014, the Defendant exercised the said investigation document by allowing the said E to submit a forged “report of business closure” to the employee of the Si interesting tax office having knowledge of the forgery, at a Si interest tax office located in Si interesting Dong-dong, Gyeonggi-do on September 1, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement by the witness J;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police officer against the defendant or E;

1. A copy of the report of closure of business (the defendant is not the same as the defendant prepared and submitted a report of closure of business with the permission from K, which was delegated by H comprehensively by H, and thus does not fall under

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the above evidence, there was no fact that J, the actual representative of H or F, has delegated K with the preparation of a report of closure of business, and the Defendant did not verify whether H or J was delegated to H or J. Thus, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the report of closure of business under H’s name was prepared without authority.

Defendant’s assertion is rejected.)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act and Articles 231 of the Criminal Act (the fact that Article 231 of the Private Document and the Selection of Fines), 234 and 231 (the fact that the private document is exercised and the selection of fines) concerning the crime;

1. Aggravation concurrent crimes;