Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 12 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

On April 16, 2012, the Defendants indicated “Dongdae-gu, Seoul,” “31 square meters in the area column,” “250,000 square meters” in the column of the site for the real estate lease contract, “two years” in the name of real estate, “two years” in the previous three-year period column, “H in Sung-nam-gu, Gyeonggi-do, the resident registration number column, “I”, “J”, and “F” in the name column of the location of the site for the real estate lease contract without the above F’s consent or consent, and affixed a seal in the name of F after preparing for inspection in advance in the column of the real estate name map.

As a result, the Defendants forged one copy of the real estate lease agreement in the name of F, which is a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering in collusion, and at the L Tax Office in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B 303 Dong on the same day, the Defendants delivered one copy of the forged real estate lease agreement to M who works for the above tax office that is aware of the forgery.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement and part of Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Statement of the N in the police station;

1. Application of a certified copy of the register, lease contract, forged lease contract;

1. Relevant Articles 231, 234, and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, and the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In the case of Defendant B with reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant B did not have any criminal record exceeding the previous or fine, and Defendant A did not have the same criminal record in the case of Defendant A, Defendant B transferred the right to lease of the G building of this case from theO and did not obtain consent from the lessor, but he had the status as lessee under the dynamic state.