1. The purpose of having the above non-indicted 1 receive criminal punishment

On July 16, 2003, the public service center of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stated "No. 1, who is the defendant defendant, at his own discretion on February 28, 2002 through March 2002, "the name and address column of the bank owners and Seo-gu (hereinafter omitted)" in the bank account number column, "(Account Number 1 omitted)," "(Account Number 2 omitted)," and "40,00,000, 260,123,545 won" in the deposit amount column, and stated "No. 28, 202," stating "No. 28,201," stating that "No. 28, 2001, the name and address column of the deposit owners and the service applicants, which had been kept by the defendant at his own discretion, submitted to the public service center's name and seal of the defendant, and that all of the above case was forged and affixed to the public service claimant's name and seal of the defendant 202."

2. On March 4, 2002, KRW 300,123,545 of the deposit money in the name of the defendant against the Suwon District Court located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 2002, was deposited by the defendant in the name of the defendant against the non-indicted 2 bank, and the defendant submitted a false complaint demanding payment of the deposit money from the above non-indicted 1 and attempted to deceive the court by deceiving the above deposit money. However, on April 17, 2003, the judgment against the plaintiff was rendered at the court of first instance (the judgment at the Seoul District Court in accordance with the decision of transfer by the Suwon District Court), and the judgment dismissing the appeal at the Seoul High Court on June 22, 2004, and on November 11, 2004, the Supreme Court did not receive each dismissal judgment from the defendant and did not intend to achieve its purpose.

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Investigation protocol of Nonindicted Party 1 by prosecution

1. Each prosecutorial protocol against Nonindicted 1 and 7

1. Second protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 1 by the police officer

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. Each complaint filed by the defendant and non-indicted 1

1. Copy of the protocol of examination of witness against Nonindicted 3 of the Seoul District Court 2002Gahap60868 case

1. A copy of each police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 3 (including Nonindicted 1’s statement in the second protocol)

1. Notice of the results of documentary appraisal, and copies of documentary appraisal (Evidence No. 14);

1. Copy of the Seoul District Court Decision 2002Gahap60868, Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na30120, and copy of the Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37737

1. A copy of the text of the judgment of the Suwon District Court 2002Gahap4453 (principal lawsuit), 2004Gahap9674 (Counterclaim), a copy of the judgment of the Seoul High Court 2005Na3469 (principal lawsuit), 2005Na3466 (Counterclaim), and a copy of the Supreme Court Decision 2006Da8431 (principal lawsuit), 2006Da843438 (Counterclaim);

In principle, the title-holder of a deposit account under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy is deemed to be the deposit owner. However, in cases where there is an express agreement between the fund contributor of the deposit and the financial institution to vest the claim for return of the deposit in the deposit account, if there is an implied agreement with the content of the agreement by taking into account the subjective and objective matters before and after the conclusion of the deposit contract, or if it is deemed that there is an implied agreement with the content of the agreement by taking into account the subjective and objective circumstances before and after the conclusion of the deposit contract, it can be deemed that the financial transaction contract with the fund

In this case, in consideration of the following facts: (a) Nonindicted Party 1 requested the Defendant to deposit the instant check that was withdrawn from the bank account of △ Bank; (b) obtained the Defendant’s request for the name lending; and (c) the Defendant led the instant deposit by finding a substitute bank of Nonindicted Party 2 bank; and (d) Nonindicted Party 1 requested Nonindicted Party 1 to the effect that only himself can withdraw the instant deposit at maturity to Nonindicted 3, who was the staff in charge of Nonindicted Bank 2 bank substitute; (b) Nonindicted Party 3 copied Nonindicted Party 1’s identification card; and (c) entered Nonindicted Party 1 (resident registration number omitted) into the customer column of the electronic computer system related to the instant deposit, “the bank of this case” in the customer column of the instant deposit; and (d) at the time, Nonindicted Party 1 and 2 concluded an agreement between Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 to vest Nonindicted Party 1 to return the instant deposit to Nonindicted Party 1; and (c) Nonindicted Party 1 and the bank of this case were the contributor’s deposit account.

1. A copy of the deposit claim registry, detailed investigation of details of transactions, and cashier's checks;

Articles 156, 352 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Attempted mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Crime of Attempted Fraud at the Time of Sales)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

Judge Credit Guarantee