A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and for ten months, for each of the defendants B.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

[2013 Highest 684] Defendant A used the fact that a promissory note issued under the name of Defendant A is indicated to have been deposited in the account when it was returned to the financial institution and deposited in the account when it was presented to the financial institution, Defendant A, who takes charge of the role in either removing or forging the portion of the face value of the promissory note, which is recorded in the name of the issuer, the issuer, the company in which the payment was made, and the Dominator, and the Dominator, thereby acquiring a certain amount in return, and then supplying it to Defendant A. The Defendant A, who entered the promissory note in the name of Defendant G, G, and H, etc., and deposited it into the account opened in the name of Defendant G, H, etc. and shared the role in opening and transferring the account (for presentation) indicated to have been deposited in the account equivalent to the face value of the promissory note to the necessary person.

1. Defendant A conspired with G and H to use a promissory note issued by “N of the representative director of a stock company’s M&N” in collusion with G and H on March 18, 2009 with a face value “31,50,000,000,000”, the first endorsement “I representative director J”, and the second endorsement “K” with each forged bill presented to the above bank staff as if the said officer did not know of the fact that the promissory note was completely drawn up, and used it. From December 22, 2008 to October 27, 2010, Defendant A presented each forged bill with a total amount of KRW 27,762,788,7840,000,000, total face value over 108 times as indicated in attached Table 108.

2. Crimes committed in collusion with E or G;

A. Defendant A, in collusion with E and G, shall be for presentation as above.