When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is the owner of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Multi-household Housing (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Housing”).

On December 2, 2013, at the office of the defendant in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant prepared a false complaint with the intention of having E, F, and G receive criminal punishment.

The above complaint was filed in collusion with Defendant E, F, and G, etc. (the Defendant’s face value, issue date, and due date, together with Defendant F, with the issuance of a promissory note in blank, signed and sealed only in the issuer column, but without authority, the face value is “375,00,000 won”, “date of issuance”, “date of payment, July 7, 201”, “3.7, 201.”, “the date of payment,” “the time of payment,” “the time of payment,” “the time of payment,” and “the time of issuance,” and submitted it to the parent law firm in charge of the authentication of a promissory note.

2. On December 15, 201, the employer “F without authority on December 15, 201,” the employer “A” confirms that the main contractor Jindo Construction completed the C Multi-household Construction.

The completion certificate of construction in the name of the complainant was forged, and was submitted to the Seoul Western District Court for the repair of defects.

Therefore, the purport of requesting criminal punishment against the Defendant’s appellant. However, on July 7, 2011, the Defendant borrowed the construction capital of the said C Housing from the Plaintiff in the location where the F, Credit Service provider I, and staff members of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Office G, etc., the Defendant did not modify a promissory note as it established a collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 375 million in the relevant housing site, and notarized the same amount of promissory note in the same place. On December 15, 2011, the Defendant did not have forged the said written confirmation of completion of construction since the Defendant had occupied the said C Housing in advance and had the F’s seal affixed on the F’s written confirmation of completion of construction. Therefore, the said written confirmation of construction was not forged.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.