On October 22, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud in the support for the development of the Sugwon method, and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the Child Training Institution on June 18, 2016. On May 16, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for special larceny, etc. in the support for the development of the Sugwon method, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 20, 2017.

1. Around September 29, 2016, the Defendant forged a private document and the instant investigation document was arrested in a crime of fraud by using approximately 25 hours the said PC while there was no money in water at “D” room located on the first floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul, for the purpose of committing a crime of fraud, although there was no money in water.

On the same day, the Defendant stated the name, age, resident registration number, dwelling, and occupation of the written form “E, 36 years of age, F, Ansan-si, members G203, and construction business” in the column of “the name, age, dwelling, and occupation” of the written form using the black pen in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City 426.

On September 29, 2016, "E" stated that the defendant's unmanned seal was affixed to the defendant's name next to his/her name and that the above statement was sent to police officers who were not aware of the circumstances.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged one copy of a private document E, which is a private document to prove facts, and exercised the forged statement as if it were duly formed.

2. On September 29, 2016, the suspect signing the above investigation or signing the above investigation at the Seoul Suwon-gu Police Station criminal and H team office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, Seoul, and at the time of investigation into the person who is suspected of fraud, the suspect stated “E” in the statement column of the suspect interrogation protocol, and affixed the person who is aware of the suspect interrogation protocol to the above E’s name and affixed the seal of the victim, and then sent it to the assistant chief of the judicial police officer I who was unaware of the above suspect interrogation protocol.

Accordingly, the Defendant forges another person’s signature for the purpose of exercising his right, and as such, the Defendant stated that the protocol of interrogation of a suspect whose name was forged has been genuine.