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

3.

1. The Defendant, as a person who had operated D Mart in Osan City, Osan-si, had been running the Mart, and the Defendant, as the owner of Mart building was unable to operate the Mart, had forged a lease contract and used money, as he had a claim for the return of a deposit of the Mart building amounting to KRW 50 million.

On October 2015, the Defendant, at the early marina office, concluded a lease agreement with the lessor and both the lessee on this real estate, by using computers, as follows:

1. The indication of real estate, No. 101 on the first floor of the building E in the Gyeonggi-do Osan-si, Gyeonggi-do, the deposit shall be paid in the amount of KRW 50,000,000 (Won 50,000,000), and the amount of monthly rent l million on the (06) day of each month;

The term of lease shall be 24 months from the date of delivery until July 05, 2017.

On May 11, 2015, the Defendant voluntarily posted F, G, and H seal on the name of the lessor F, G, and H, the name of the F, G, and H.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one chapter of the lease contract in the name of F, G, and H, which is a private document related to rights and obligations.

2. On October 8, 2015, the event of the above investigation document, and the fraud accused, at the above D Et office, I asked the victim I who was introduced through the branch, “I have a flock that I would provide money through the branch.”

The lack of funds will be difficult due to the difficulties of the situation in which the management of the Art is operated.

It is not easy to repay the amount of fine because the business sales of Mart is fine, and it is possible to provide money as security for Mart lease.

“A false statement,” and, as in paragraph 1, a forged lease agreement was issued to a victim who is unaware of the forgery.

However, in fact, the defendant did not own property under the name of the defendant, and the debt amounted to approximately KRW 80 million, while there was about KRW 50 million in relation to the management of the marina, and was different.