Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 2014, the Defendant: (a) entered into a contract for interior works (such as construction cost: KRW 50 million) for the building located in the Busan Young-gu, Busan Metropolitan City; (b) the same Gu D and E housing located; (c) on August 8, 2014, the Defendant had already paid construction cost of KRW 40 million in early 200,000, which was the owner of the construction; and (d) was refused, and accordingly, he had the intent to forge the documents related to the construction work in order to demand the increase of the construction cost.

On August 2014, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily prepared the simplified receipt in the name of I, a private document on the rights and obligations, stating the “570,000 won” in the column of the date of preparation of the blank receipt, on which I’s rubber receipt, the operator of H, is affixed, from the G non-point point of the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant F located in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The Defendant, including this, forged a total of 13 private documents in the same manner as in the attached list of crimes at the same time.

2. Uttering a falsified investigation document;

A. On October 6, 2014, the Defendant sent to the owner B a certificate of content that he/she seeks payment of construction cost at a post office consisting of 1218-1, Jinhae-dong 1218-1, Yongsan-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and exercised it by sending a forged simple receipt receipt 13 as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) as if it were a document duly formed, and then having it reached B around the seventh day of the same month.

B. Around January 12, 2015, the Defendant submitted 13 copies of a forged simple receipt as stated in the above paragraph (1) to a civil petition office at the Changwon-dong District Court civil petition office located in Changwon-dong, Changwon-dong, Changwon-si, which could not know the forgery, to the public petition office, and exercised it.

3. The Defendant is the owner of the first police officer on August 2014, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1).