However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Around December 28, 2006, the Defendant was in custody of D’s seal imprint register in the Defendant’s office’s office depository located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on December 28, 2006, and the issue was whether D’s certificate of borrowing was forged or not. Around September 19, 2008, the Defendant appeared as a witness and testified that “D’s seal imprint register was kept in custody at the depository around December 28, 2006,” and the Defendant appeared as witness of the Seoul Northern District Court on September 19, 2008 at the court of 103, the Seoul Northern District Court of Law No. 2008Da1414, May 28, 2006, and there was no doubt that D’s seal imprint is against the Defendant’s right to defense, and thus, the Defendant did not appear at the above 20.3rd Government District Court’s testimony as a witness of 2005Da2724, Jun. 24, 201010.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement of witness E and F in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Copies of each protocol of examination of witness;

1. The current status of loans borrowed from EDCF and the application of delegation Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The judgment and the defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (the circumstances favorable to the defendant among the reasons for sentencing below) are consistent with the objective facts that the defendant testified that he had the custody of the D's seal imprint around December 28, 2006 in the case of embezzlement, etc. by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2008DaDa1414, Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2008DaDa1414, and the person who had the custody of the D's seal imprint at the time was D's seal imprint.