except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On February 5, 2013, the Defendant, for the purpose of uttering at “C” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, submitted to the Defendant the application form for mobile phone subscription with the see pen, “D” to the subscriber name column, “G” to the customer address column, and “Gdong-gu E” to the applicant column, and forged the application form for the mobile phone subscription in the victim’s name, which is a private document related to the rights and obligations by entering the applicant column as “D” and signing it next thereto. The Defendant, without any authority to open the mobile phone under the victim’s name, submitted the forged application form to the employee F of the above “C” to the relevant employee F, who is aware of the fact, as if the said application form was duly formed. The fact was exercised by the Defendant, even though he did not have any authority to do so, he received from the said F the amount equivalent to KRW 759,00,

2. On February 6, 2013, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s home located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, entered “D”, “C”, “C million won” in the loan amount column, and “D” in the name column of the obligor’s name in the loan transaction agreement with the Defendant’s house located in Gangdong-gu, Seoul, with the intention of exercising the right at the Defendant’s office, and signed the loan transaction agreement in the name of the Defendant, thereby forging the loan transaction agreement in the name of the victim D, which is a private document related to rights and obligations. The Defendant, without knowledge of the fact, has the authority to file an application for the loan in the name of the victim, wired the loan transaction agreement in the name of the victim from the said employee in charge to the agricultural bank account in the name of the victim, thereby forging the loan transaction agreement in the name of the victim.

3. On February 6, 2013, the Defendant applied for a loan of “Sld loan” to the “Sld loan” bank by telephone at the above Defendant’s office, and in fact, granting a victim’s resident registration number as if the Defendant was a victim even though there was no right to file an application for a loan under the name of the victim D.