Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

A. On May 14, 2013, at a C cafeteria located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would provide the victim D with the money to be given to the street cleaners who are cleaning outside the cafeteria.”

However, the facts were not street cleaners.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100,00 from the victim immediately.

B. On June 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) visited the victim D again at the place under the preceding paragraph at around 20:55 on June 15, 2013; and (b) falsely stated that “The victim D is a person cleaning before, and the liquor tax is required.

However, the facts were not street cleaners.

As such, the Defendant, while deceiving the victim, was aware of the Defendant, who had been living in one month prior to the victim.

C. At around 21:10 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender Ecompact F of the Ulsan Central Police Station Ecompis on the same day; (b) the Defendant was likely to have been able to be able to obtain a thief due to nonperformance of the probation order that was previously stolen; and (c) the name and resident registration number of

In order to exercise the signature on the confirmation letter that the control police officer believed to be true, he signed G with the intention of exercising the signature on the confirmation letter that the defendant notified the principle of Disturbance.

In addition, around 23:28 on the same day, the investigation of the Ulsan Heavy Department and the H Team police officer I transferred the interrogation protocol to G, and the interrogation protocol was prepared in the name of G and the signature was requested at the end of the protocol, thereby forging it.

The defendant at the same date and time as the above paragraph (c) above, and at a place, submitted a written confirmation that he forged his signature as G and the suspect interrogation protocol that forged his signature as G to G was duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the accused and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Criminal facts;