1. On September 26, 2017, the Defendant forged a private document, using the custody of B’s seal and a certificate of seal imprint, who is a partner, to use the document for financing in his/her name.

On the same day, the Defendant had C, who is aware of such circumstances in Busan (hereinafter referred to as the “UB”), state C’s name, address E 1/5, creditor F, debtor B, debt amount, 15% per annum after the due date, 30 October 2017, 2017 on the letter of proxy form for a law firm D’s notarized power of attorney, stating C’s name, address, city E 1/5, creditor F, debtor B, debt amount, 20 million won, loan date, 15% per annum after the due date, and 30% after the due date, 2017.

B has stamped B’s seal.

Although the facts charged are stated as if the defendant prepared the power of attorney in this case by sole act, according to the evidence examined by this court, it can be seen that the power of attorney in this case was prepared as above with C, and it does not seem to hinder the defendant's exercise of his right of defense by recognizing it as above without any changes in indictment.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant committed a letter of delegation (hereinafter referred to as “the letter of delegation of this case”) in the name of a private document B, which is a private document.

2. On September 26, 2017, the Defendant exercised the instant investigation document by allowing C to borrow KRW 80 million from F as the obligee’s representative at the “D” office located on the second floor of the building H, located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan, as the representative of B, and by allowing F to deliver the forged power of attorney to F who is aware of the forgery in the process as if it were a document duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Protocol concerning the statement with respect to B, and protocol concerning the examination of suspect with respect to C;

1. The case.