However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who served as a director at D in the Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City C from June 2010 to May 2011.

1. When the result of the warning test of the test report on the power-driven accessories, which are to be supplied to the Korea East and West Development Headquarters, falls short of the supply standard, the Defendant had a mind that the alteration of private documents would be made with a test report stating the test result meeting the supply standard.

On May 201, the Defendant arbitrarily modified the numerical value 1,034 of the item column of “A” in the name of the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology (HV), which was transmitted by e-mail at the foregoing D office, to 1,320, and the numerical value 72 of the “HCRC conversion value” column to 81.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the defendant altered one copy of the test report in the name of Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, which is a private document related to certification of facts.

2. The Defendant, as described in paragraph 1, submitted one copy of the test report in the name of the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology as modified to the supply staff in charge of the Korean East and East Power Generation (U.S.) who may know of the fact to the U.S. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. C. T. T., the date and time set forth in paragraph 1, to the U.S. T. T. T. C

3. On April 7, 2011, fraudD entered into a supply contract with the U.S. U.S. C. U.S. C. U.S. C., the U.S. C. U.S. C. and the U.S. C., to supply valves by May 2, 201.

On May 18, 2011, the Defendant submitted one copy of the altered test report to the damaged company, and took place as if the result of the test results meeting the supply conditions, and supplied approximately KRW 17,665,62,00, and had the victimized company transfer KRW 17,627,00 to the Bank account (E) of D, excluding late payment charges, as price for goods.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivingd the damaged company and caused D to receive the property.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant;