If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On June 22, 2012, the Defendant, at the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office, used a performance guarantee insurance contract that the LAD has entered into with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City guaranty insurance policy, by having F, the head of the business support division use the E-authorized certificate for the joint and several surety of the E, thereby unfairly using the other person's authorized certificate beyond the scope of use or use.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s legal statement (Provided, That the Defendant’s implied consent is claimed);

1. The witness F’s legal statement (it is alleged that the defendant should be deemed to have obtained implied consent, but according to the witness F’s statement, the witness F’s statement stated that F was “I must go out of a joint and several surety” from E before the instant case, and it was delivered to the defendant, but it was known that the defendant talked to the effect that “I will go out of a joint and several surety” was jointly and severally guaranteed by using E’s authorized certificate, and thus, the defendant’s argument contrary to this cannot be accepted).

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and the choice of punishment, and Articles 32 subparagraph 3 and 23 (4) of the Digital Signature Act;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;