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

The Defendant had the intent to make a false application for a public summons against a promissory note issued by C, and forged a certificate of the issuance of a promissory note in the name of C necessary for a public summons, and C’s certificate of the personal seal impression in the name of C was kept in D in the law firm, thereby accepting the power of attorney forged and submitting it to the Seoul Northern District Court.

1. On July 2008, the Defendant proves that “amount: 1,150,000,000 won in the form of a certificate of issuance of a promissory note without authority for the purpose of exercising at a place where the specific place is unknown: The date of payment: At sight, the date of payment: Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the date of issuance: March 28, 2008: C representative director E, and the said promissory note were issued on March 28, 2008;

In July 2008, the issuer, C representative E, and then, the issuer, a corporation, affixed the seal of C corporation, and forged one copy of the certificate of promissory note issuance in the name of C, a private document on rights and obligations.

2. On August 22, 2008, the Defendant exercised the issuance certificate of forged promissory notes by submitting it to the staff in charge of the Seoul Northern District Court along with one copy of the corporate seal impression certificate of C, which was paid by the law firm D as above, along with the written amendment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each testimony of witness F, E, and G;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the E part of the statement);

1. Application for a public summons;

1. The receipt for lost cars; and

1. Copies of promissory notes;

1. Certificates of the issuance of promissory notes;

1. Copy of the judgment of Seoul Western District Court 2010 High Court 2607 and protocol of the trial;

1. A copy of the judgment of Chuncheon District Court in 2008Kahap619; and

1. The response of the law firm's preparation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act and Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense (the point of uttering of a falsified investigative document).