The Defendant, by issuing a promissory note in the name of D and financing the funds at a discount, had his intent to receive endorsement from E in the transactional relationship with the promissory note issued by him.

When the Defendant came to know on the books of G office located in the G office located in the G company, the relationship with E was aggravated, the Defendant planned to make endorsement in the name of G company E on a promissory note issued by the Defendant, attaching his name and seal affixed to the G office. A.

On August 208, 2008, the Defendant: (a) made up of the gap in the E’s cresh in G Office with a view to exercising, the Defendant forged a description of the rights and obligations of securities by sealing the name and seal of G on August 20, 2008 on the back of a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) in the name of D, the face value of which is KRW 18,000,000, (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) which was written in advance, from August 20, 2008.

B. On August 2008, the Defendant, at the office of the I Co., Ltd. located in Gyeyang-gu H in Gyeyang-gu, Youngyang-gu, Suyang-gu, J.

As set forth in paragraph (1), the endorsement of G Company E exercised forged securities by asking the seal of the bill of exchange in most of the forged promissory notes, upon which the bill of exchange was duly formed.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is consistent with the purport that, from the investigation process to the trial process, the Defendant stated at G office around 15:00 on August 20, 2012 that, “A himself/herself affixed his/her name and seal on what he/she had affixed to G’s name and seal to his/her lock toilets,” and that, “E, while undergoing a civil action, only during the instant promissory note, reported that the name and seal affixed to G was affixed to the instant promissory note, and thus, the statement is highly reliable, and E is deemed to have been trusted.