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

1. On July 2015, the Defendant modified private documents without authority for the purpose of exercising it to the full bench in charge of the litigation for the claim for the return of loans to D and E on a non-commercial day and on July 1, 2015, “F, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 201 Dong 901, “D and E keep one hundred million won per day for A.

“The date for writing the evidence of the cash custody stated in the statement was changed from May 10, 200 to May 10, 2006, using the scriptive pension to “the 10th day of May 2006.”

As a result, the Defendant modified one copy of the cash custody certificate, which is a private document on the rights and obligations.

2. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the loan (No. 2015 group No. 31909 group) against D and E at the public service center of the Seoul Northern District Court, Dobong-gu Seoul District Court, Seoul, Seoul, Seoul, Seoul, for a request for return of the loan (No. 749 group No. 2015 group No. 31909), and submitted a copy of the cash custody certificate altered as above to the public

3. Around July 27, 2015, the Defendant, at the above Seoul Northern District Court, filed a claim for the return of the loan against D and E (No. 2015 group 31909) at the Seoul Northern District Court, and submitted to the competent division the certificate of cash custody prepared by the day he/she prepared as evidence of proof as referred to in paragraph 1.

However, the above receipt of cash custody was made in order to show that D and E borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant on May 10, 200, and according to this, even though the statute of limitations has already expired since D and E had already been completed, Defendant 1 attempted to obtain pecuniary profits equivalent to KRW 100 million upon being sentenced to a favorable judgment by deceiving the full bench as if the statute of limitations has not expired by altering the date of preparation as mentioned above.

However, D did not comply with this and did not commit an attempted crime because it was the wind to prove that the date when the certificate of cash custody was prepared has been altered.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

1. D. D.