Defendant was aware of his knowledge around December 2015.

E From E, upon the request of “I would like to show forged pay-to-be securities and to receive investment money, I would like to cause forged pay-to-be securities.” It was said that I would like to demand forged pay-to-be securities from a name-to-be winner (F).”

피고인은 2016. 5. 경 서울 동대문구 G에 있는 ‘H 회사’ 사무실에서, 위 성명 불상 자로부터 하이 쎌 주식회사가 발행인으로 되어 있는 위조된 2015. 5. 22. 자 ‘ 제 12회 무기명식 무보증 사모전환 사채’ 1억 원 권 5매 (002161 ~002165 호) 총 5억 원 상당을 교부 받은 다음, 같은 날 위 사무실에서 E에게 위와 같이 위조된 전환 사채를 교부하였다.

In this respect, the Defendant exercised a forged pay-free security.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing forged securities photographs;

1. Articles 217 and 214 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. In light of the fact that: (a) the value of the instant forged crime is a large amount of the value of the securities subject to punishment; and (b) the Defendant committed a crime related to securities even though there have been several criminal records including the same type of punishment with regard to the same type of crime; (c) a severe punishment is inevitable; (d) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself; (e) the Defendant was discovered that the instant suspected securities were forged; and (e) the actual damage has not occurred due to being discovered that the securities were forged; and and (e) the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of the sentencing conditions indicated in