2.Provided, That the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant was issued a promissory note note C issued by F through E as it is difficult for the Defendant to pay the price for goods due to the lack of economic conditions during the operation of the set, as a person operating the “D E” in the militaryposi, and due to the lack of economic conditions.

In collusion with the above E, on May 2016, the Defendant left the third floor office of H S Bana building located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, the third floor office of H Ma, the Industrial Bank of Korea I, the issuer “F,” and entered the part of the face value, payment period in the face value column as “three million won (Won 34,000,000)” and “F on May 4, 2016,” respectively, and delivered the forged fact under the pretext of the payment of goods, etc., as if the fact of forgery was genuinely issued.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with E, forged and exercised a promissory note in the name of F, a securities, without authority, for the purpose of exercising the right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Complaint;

1. Decision of accomplice E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (a copy of forged promissory notes);

1. Article 214(1), Article 30 (Crimes of Counterfeited Securities) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Articles 217, 214(1), and 30 (Exercise of Counterfeited 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 community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act that the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime (one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act) is an unfavorable factor for sentencing.

However, in consideration of the fact that the complainant fully repaid the damage with E, who is an accomplice, and the complainant does not want the punishment, equity with the level of punishment for E, and other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the age, circumstances after the crime, and sexual conduct, the sentence shall be determined as ordered.