Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,00, and by a fine of KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on May 1, 2014, a person who was sentenced to one year of imprisonment by occupational embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court and was confirmed on May 9, 2014 by two years of suspended execution and actually operated the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is an employee of the said company.

Defendant

A around May 2012, around the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D D Building E, without having entered into a real estate purchase service contract with the operator of the said company, A, who is an employee of the said company, made a contract for real estate purchase services of KRW 300,00,00,000, to prepare a real estate purchase service contract and submit it to the tax office, and Defendant B conspired to prepare the "real estate purchase service contract" in accordance with the above order.

1. On May 2012, Defendant B entered “Real Estate Purchase Services (Consultation) agreement” in the document top, with a view to exercising without any authority, in the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., by means of a computer, Defendant B entered into a contract with the Fund in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seoul, and entered into a contract with the Fund of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., with the amount of KRW 381,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,

As such, the Defendants conspired to forge the “real estate purchase service agreement” in the name of the F in charge of the private document-related dispute settlement agreement.

2. Around June 2012, Defendant B filed a tax adjustment report with the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government District Tax Office, which was located in Seocho-gu, Seoul, by Defendant A’s instruction, submitted the forged “real estate purchase service contract (consultation)” to an employee of the said tax office without knowledge of the circumstances.

As such, the Defendants conspired to use the forged private document.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements 1.