A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On November 24, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on November 18, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 18, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

On September 26, 2007, the injured party B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim B") obtained approval from the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor for the business to build a major complex building with a total floor area of 37,000 square meters in size (hereinafter referred to as the "instant business") on the site of 37,000 square meters and 2,200 square meters of E and 24 lots in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-gu, a joint owner of a project (hereinafter referred to as the "instant project site"). Since the financial crisis and local construction competition have become more than 208, it was impossible to raise additional funds by the method of financial crisis and local construction competition, the project approval has been suspended on an annual basis, and after the project approval has been extended on one-year basis.

On May 2012, the Defendant found F, a director of the victimized Company, and agreed that he will proceed with the business in question, thereby participating in the business in this case. The victimized Company delegated the Defendant to perform the duties related to the extension of approval on behalf of the victimized Company, and restricted the Defendant to use the transaction contract with the land owner to be submitted to the Ulsan-gu Office for the extension of approval on behalf of the victimized Company, and limited the purpose of using the transaction contract with the land owner to be submitted to the Ulsan-gu Office for the extension of approval on behalf of the victimized Company.

Therefore, while carrying out related work by inserting the seal of the employee of the victimized company, the defendant had the intention to use the document in the name of the victimized company by forging it beyond the authority delegated by the victimized company, if necessary.

As above, while the Defendant is carrying out the business affairs related to the extension of business approval delegated by the victimized company, it is difficult to extend the business approval due to the removal of the building owned by the said Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and thus, there is an employee seal of the victimized company.