1. Around February 17, 2010, the Defendant, without authority, inserted the phrase “I,” the “I, without authority, borrow the said amount and draw up the loan certificate” in the Seongbuk-gu Seoul apartment 102 Dong 1002, 1002, and without authority, for the purpose of exercising the right to exercise. The term of the loan was written by inserting the phrase “I, upon borrowing the said amount and drawing up the loan certificate.” The term of the loan was written on October 8, 2005, and the settlement of interest shall be settled on the eightth day of each month, and the settlement date may be postponed by mutual agreement. The obligee promised I, at any time and at any time, to pay the principal and interest to the guarantor at the time of the request for the repayment of the principal.”

Accordingly, the Defendant modified the cash loan certificate in the name of D, a private document on rights and obligations.

2. On February 18, 2010, the Defendant: (a) submitted evidence in the Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court’s civil petition office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court; (b) issued the modified cash loan certificate to a court employee who may have knowledge of the circumstance when submitting evidence regarding the lawsuit seeking the return of loan; and (c) exercised it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Cash tea certificate (five pages of investigation records);

1. Application of the statutes governing the withdrawal of litigation;

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. Of the requirements for suspended sentence under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act, the term “where the circumstances prior to the opening are obvious” refers to the case where the defendant would not be subject to a new crime even if he did not sentence, by comprehensively taking into account the standard of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the degree of reflectivity.