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

Around July 2008, the Defendant’s wife C and D prepared two copies of the performance agreement in the name of C, D, and C and D, respectively, to the effect that “E and 102 Dong 101 offered as security and terminated the comprehensive collateral security at Nam-si E, Nam-si, 102 Dong 201, and F, Inc., but, at the same time, D and G, the current representative director of F, Inc., shall repay the principal and interest of the loan to C.”

On February 2014, the Defendant, at the above Defendant’s office, attached the official seal of the FO representative director of the corporation, and changed the number of “30” as stated in the last part of July 2008 in the letter of performance agreement to the date of preparation of the document, and kept the document by changing the number of “30” as written in the letter of performance agreement to the date of document preparation.

On April 23, 2015, the Defendant submitted evidentiary materials of the filing of the claim for reimbursement claim No. 2015Gahap244, which was filed by the Defendant against the said Defendant against the F, etc., the Defendant submitted the modified performance agreement to the person in charge of the court, who was unaware of the relevant alteration, as if it was a document duly formed.

Accordingly, the defendant exercised the altered private document.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Relevant data, such as a complaint (a copy of the revised statement of execution agreement, a copy of the original copy, and a copy of the complaint);

1. The judgment (the defendant and his defense counsel argued to the effect that there was no intention to use the altered document as a document attached to the actual number in the process of requesting the case to a certified judicial scrivener. However, according to the evidence above, the defendant altered one copy of the performance agreement in the name of this case D, etc. and used it as evidence for submitting it as evidence for return of unjust enrichment against D (the judgment of the District Court 2013Gahap73336, Jan. 22, 2015).