Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

From May 2013, the Defendant is a person who had operated the frequency of “C” in “C” in “C” in “C” in the Republic of Korea.

The Defendant, around May 2013, entered into a lease agreement referred to in the “C” with D, the owner of the building, and entered into a contract with E, the name of the business operator and registered as the Defendant, was E or an employee who was a partner of the business.

In order to change the name of F, I thought that the lease contract in the name of D, tenant E, landlord D and tenant F was newly prepared.

1. The act of forging a private document and the act of uttering a falsified investigation document on May 2014;

A. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obtained the lessor D’s consent while taking the procedure for changing the name of the said business operator to H affiliated with G branch of the Korea Food and Drug Association G branch of the Gangwon-do branch of the Korea Food and Drug Association; (b) on May 20

B) In the column of the site of the real estate lease agreement entered into a computer at a non-place location, the said H H had the said H state state the “original city B,” the deposit “three million won,” the rent “1.6 million won,” the address in the column of the lessor, “original city I,” “resident registration number J, and name “D,” and the lessee’s address in the column of the lessee’s address “105 K Apartment-gun, Gangwon-gun, 407, and the resident registration number L, and name “E”.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged one copy of the lease agreement of real estate in the name of D, a private document on rights and obligations.

B. On May 29, 2014, the Defendant exercised the aforementioned investigation document by allowing the said H to use the forged lease contract at the original tax office located in the original state-dong at the original state-dong at the original state-dong level, as if it were genuine to the employee of the tax office having the knowledge of the forgery.

2. The act of forging a private document and the act of uttering a falsified investigation document on May 2015;

A. On May 15, 2015, the Defendant forged a private document with the lessor D’s consent while re-afusing the procedure for changing the name of the business operator to the H on or around May 15, 2015.

In the end, the real estate lease contract in which the H is entered into a computer at the location of the place.