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

On March 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the F Research Institute office for Operation E in Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (b) issued a receipt to the effect that the Defendant, the owner of the said F building, and the lessor, acquired the said FF from the lessee E; and (c) received a return of KRW 125 million with the lease deposit; and (d) issued it to the Defendant; and accordingly, the Defendant possessed the said receipt.

1. On March 22, 2013, from April 16, 2013 to April 16, 2013, the Defendant altered a private document, without authority, one copy of the receipt in the name of E, which is a private document concerning the rights and obligations or certificates of fact, by additionally stating the phrase “the term “” in the last part of the main text of the said receipt without authority, at the time of occurrence of a false amount.

2. Around April 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sent a receipt of the said alteration to E as if it were a document duly formed by the Dobong-gu Seoul 5-dong Seoul 5-dong Office; and (b) exercised a receipt of the said alteration by E, as if it were a content-certified mail.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement E in the protocol of interrogation of the accused by the prosecution (as of April 10, 2014)

1. The second prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. The application of the content certification reply and receipt statutes;

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the facts constituting an offense, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

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

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.