However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On May 9, 201, the Defendant, who forged securities, was a partner of a development project of the Central Station C’s site at an Buddhist land.

D paid KRW 450 million to D and agreed to take over the interest and business rights. On May 10, 201, G Co., Ltd.'s office operated by D in the vicinity of the F Station located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, issued a promissory note with face value of KRW 250 million out of the above transfer price.

On July 201, 201, at the office of the above G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “C”), the Defendant stated D as “H (I) additional to the issuer’s column with a fluorial color on the face of the said Promissory Notes for the purpose of exercising the guarantor of the said Promissory Notes upon D’s demand for the said Promissory Notes.”

H’s painting was stamped.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a promissory note in the name of H, which is a securities.

2. Around July 2011, the Defendant exercised a forged promissory note at the office of the said G G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) as if it were actually issued as if it were actually issued.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the fourth public trial;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the H's accusation report (including all accompanying documents, such as an appraisal report);

1. Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the fact of Article 241 of the Criminal Act) and Articles 217 and 214(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of exercising forged securities);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The crime of undermining the credibility and safety of the legal transactions of securities is not weak, due to the act of forging the part of the Defendant’s guarantor of a promissory note with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act, resulting in damage not only H in the name of the Defendant, but also to D who is the addressee of a promissory note.

However, the defendant repents his wrong, and H is the mother.