A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant K.

1. Defendant A

A. On June 2017, the Defendant forged a promissory note with the intent to forge the promissory note in order to raise the price to be paid to the customer at one set of C points operated by the Defendant on the B4th floor of Busan Dong-gu, Busan, and with the intention to do so in advance, the Defendant forged the Chapter 4 of a promissory note in the name of M in the same manner as written in the attached list of crimes, including affixing seals, on June 25, 2017, “this million won”, “on June 25, 2017”, “on November 30, 2017”, “L”, and “M” on the date of payment, and then forged the Chapter 4 of a promissory note in the same manner as written in the attached list of crimes.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged the Chapter 4 of Promissory Notes in the name of M as securities.

B. From around 16:00 on June 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) exercised the security interest by using forged promissory notes at one set of the above C, the Defendant exercised it under the pretext of the discount of bills, as if it was actually issued 4 copies of the forged promissory notes to N who knew of such forgery.

2. On June 2017, the Defendants: (a) had the intent to pay the transaction amount at a discounted discount of a forged promissory note as set forth in paragraph (1) to the victim N, who operates the business partner, with the intent to pay the transaction amount; (b) Defendant A, who reported Defendant K’s phone number to the victim as if the Plaintiff was the name of the holder of the promissory note; and (c) Defendant K’s phone number was known to the victim as being the M’s telephone number as the name of the holder of the promissory note; (d) Defendant K received a call from the injured party to verify whether the said promissory note was the actual holder of the promissory note, and

At around 16:00 on June 26, 2017, Defendants: (a) the above-mentioned bill was forged; (b) Defendant A, even though the above-mentioned bill was a forged bill, is a bill issued by M; and (c) Defendant A, at the face of 3% on the date of payment, at the discount of the bill.