Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an employee of the D Company located in Ansan-si C.

1. On April 3, 2016, the Defendant, at the office of the said D Company, made E, without authority, an employee of the D Company without authority, prepare a car transfer certificate stating that F sells G vehicle at KRW 8 million to the outside of H, the president of the D Company, by using the computer, and forged a car transfer certificate, which is a private document on the rights and obligations of F, by having the name of F enter the name on the back of the transferor’s name and affix his seal thereto.

2. On April 4, 2016, the Defendant submitted a false motor vehicle transfer certificate at the registered vehicle registration office located 1/6 of the Gosan-si Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council member's Gosan-si, to an employee in charge of such fact, and applied for a transfer registration under the name of H on the same day when issuing the F's seal impression certificate for sale, and applied for a transfer registration under the name of H on the same day.

In this respect, the defendant exercised the certificate of transfer of the above vehicle, which is a forged private document, and made a false report to enter the false facts in the vehicle registration ledger, and exercised it by making it available at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of a witness I;

1. The police statement statement of F with respect to F [the Defendant, as a vehicle purchaser, committed an act such as preparing a certificate of vehicle transfer as indicated in the judgment in accordance with normal trading procedures, and thus, did not have the intent to commit the crime, and even if not, it constitutes a justifiable act to preserve the purchase price

However, in full view of the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was found to have been guilty of the name-holder F and the purchase agent I, respectively, from a person in the name of the owner of the vehicle, and the F discovered the fact that he requested the return of the vehicle and got out of the criminal act as stated in the judgment. The defendant was a sales contract.