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

1. The Defendant is a person engaged in trading of used cars with the trade name “D” in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Building.

On November 10, 201, the Defendant, without authority, filed a vehicle transaction report with the competent authority at a price lower than the actual vehicle transaction price, and received part of the registration tax from the vehicle buyer. In fact, the Defendant, without authority, purchased the F Coin vehicle at KRW 5.6 million by means of a computer, stated “G”, “F” in the vehicle registration number column, “F” in the name of the car registration number column, “F” in the name of the vehicle, “F”, “F” in the name of the passenger, “F”, “F” in the name of the vehicle, and “E” in the name of the transferee.

As a result, the Defendant forged a motor vehicle transfer certificate in the name of E, a private document on rights and duties, and forged a motor vehicle transfer certificate in the name of another person six times as shown in the attached crime list.

2. Around November 2011, the Defendant submitted a forged E-name transfer certificate to a union worker who is aware of the fact, such as the foregoing paragraph (a), at the HH high-class trading business association in the above C-building, and exercised the forged private document six times as shown in the attached list of crimes, including the use of forged private document by allowing the person in charge of the business to submit it to the person in charge of the affairs of the Incheon Seo-gu Office at that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. The entry of some of the witness I in the third protocol of trial;

1. Partial statement of the witness J;

1. Details of currency of actual purchasers, standard market prices in 201, and recording records in 2012;

1. A copy of the relevant investigation document (a copy of the investigation record, 74, 78, 80, 87, 92, 97);

1. In the investigation report (each vehicle buyer’s call report) the Defendant was only the employee of D at the time of the instant case, and the accounting employee I forged the instant document upon the direction of J by the president.