On November 17, 2015, 2015, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) submitted a complaint to E and F through Attorney G and C in charge of E and F, at the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Office, located in 158 as the distribution of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul.

The written complaint is that “Defendant C is the president of H Limited Corporation (hereinafter “H”) located in the Warsaw of China, and Defendant F is a director in charge of the said company’s Korean office, and the fact that the Defendant F entered into an original supply contract with Defendant C (D) on May 7, 2015 was that “I” (hereinafter “I”) did not have the authority to prepare an order for purchase (original supply contract) in the name of I, irrelevant to the Defendant Nonparty C, even if there is no or exists, it was no authority to prepare an order for purchase (original supply contract) in the name of I. However, the written order for purchase (original supply contract) was prepared and used to forge and use the private document.”

Meanwhile, on December 9, 2015, the Defendant, as a managing director in charge of D’s affairs related to the above nuclear supply contract, was investigated on December 9, 2015 by the Guro-gu Seoul Police Station investigation in Guro-gu Seoul Police Station and the first team office in the economy of the Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, as an agent for the complainant’s statement. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant, a judicial police officer in charge of investigation, entered into the original supply contract with the company “D on May 7, 2015,” but the Defendant, without authority, entered I into the original supply contract with the company “Purca Or” on the part of the supplier of the original purchase order and entered I in the name of the supplier.

“...........”

However, on May 7, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with F and D (original importer) on the part of H, the Defendant, the Defendant, at H (the original exporter), to receive KRW 1.3 billion from H (the original exporter). On June 12, 2015, the Defendant received an estimate invoice in the name of F and received from F, and around that time, reported that “H and I are the same companies as H and I” from K and L, the employees of D, and accordingly, D, at the Industrial Bank of Korea on June 19, 2015 (L.).