1. 유가 증권 위조 피고인은 2013. 12. 경 대구 수성구 지산동에 있는 코 리치 네트 웍 스 사 무실에서, D이 어음 금액란을 백지로 발행한 약속어음의 어음 금액란에 검은색 볼펜으로 “ 일금 삼억원( \300,000,000) 이라고 기재하였다.

Therefore, there was no fact that D granted the defendant the right to fill the blank against the above promissory note.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising the right, the Defendant forged a promissory note in the name of D, which is a security.

2. On December 20, 2013, the Defendant, at the F’s office located in the fourth floor of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, issued forged promissory notes to F as if they were duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, G and H;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the accused;

1. Copies of promissory notes;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing custody certificate;

1. Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime (the fact of Article 214 of the Criminal Act) and Articles 217 and 214(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (the fact of exercising forged securities);

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the Defendant, at the Daegu District Court on October 15, 2010, was sentenced to three years of imprisonment and five years of suspended execution, and the said decision became final and conclusive on January 7, 201, and exercised the same by arbitrarily stating the amount of the Promissory Notes in the column of the face value of the Promissory Notes of this case, which was “30 million won.”

As the Promissory Notes in this case were distributed, D, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, has become liable for the obligations equivalent to 300 million won, and thereby, D and its management had been seized due to the seizure of the claim for construction price.

I has caused difficulties in conducting normal economic activities and obtaining orders for construction works.

The defendant set forth 1 commercial buildings underground of "JJ building", which was under construction.