On June 22, 2012, the Defendant filed a civil lawsuit with the Geumcheon Police Station located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul, for the purpose of having the Complainant, D, and E receive criminal punishment, “In spite of the fact that the complainant borrowed KRW 50 million from C and D, the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s complaint, by stealing the name of the complainant, thereby forging the receipt as if the complainant borrowed KRW 50 million, and the Defendant, C and D, who is the Defendant’s complaint, attempted to submit the forged receipt as evidence to the complainant to return the borrowed amount of KRW 50 million and receive KRW 50 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00).”

However, the above receipt was not forged because the defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from C, D through E on January 20, 2003 at the same location with the above C, D, and E and issued it to C, and D.

Accordingly, the defendant brought the above C, D, and E without exception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement in C, D, and E in the second trial records;

1. Entry of each of the accused in the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution against the accused;

1. Entry of C, D, and E in the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against C, and partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol for C, D, or E;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a receipt, an apartment charter contract, and a copy of an attorney appointment document;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes. Article 40 (Punishment of Punishment concerning Unlimited Accusation against Victims C of the largest Crimes);

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of the alternative sentence of imprisonment with prison labor is that the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from C and D, and then filed a complaint with C, etc. for the crime of forging private documents, etc., beyond denying the loan by E, even though it is apparent that the receipt and the charter contract were prepared through E.