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

On October 16, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 24th of the same month.

The Defendant, without authority, changed the term “9” to “7 days” and exercised a promissory note in the name of the victim E, a securities, by means of adding “7 days” to “7 days”, which was the payment date of promissory note, which was the payment date of the issuer E, bill number F, date of issuance, April 2014, and July 20, 2014, at a coffee shop where it is impossible to know the trade names in the vicinity of Seoul Gyeonggi-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The Defendant changed the term “9” to “a promissory note in the name of the victim E, a securities” and issued a revised promissory note to G as if it was actually issued.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

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

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. Copies of promissory notes;

1. Previous conviction: Criminal history inquiry, case search, and investigation report (Attachment of the judgment) (a defense counsel shall deny the part of the exercise of the altered bill on the ground that G was aware of the fact that the reason why the defendant altered the payment date is at the request of G and that G was aware of the alteration

However, the witness G does not know whether the date of payment of the bill of this case has been changed. However, the witness G only stated that the bill of this case was issued by the defendant and received discount of the bill.

In addition to the fact that G’s above statement is more favorable for bill discount than the payment date, and that G does not have any reason to extend the payment date for bill discount, since the payment date is longer the date for bill discount, the above statement has credibility.

I seem to appear.

The defense counsel's assertion is not accepted

Application of Statutes

1. Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime (the alteration of securities by pay) and Articles 217 and 214(1) of the Criminal Act (the exercise of securities by mistake) of the same Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 37 of the Criminal Code for the Treatment of Concurrent Crimes