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

Despite the fact that the Defendant, as a new house construction business operator from October 2010, newly constructed the house B with the building owner from around October 2010, the Defendant did not have obtained permission from the building owner B to supply steel materials from the company operated by the victim C, on the ground of joint and several sureties, he thought B as a joint and several sureties.

1. On November 29, 2010, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) indicated “B, resident registration number column; and (b) indicated “B, in the address column”; and (c) affixed B’s seal imprint impression in the name following B, on the column for the representative of the joint and several liability under the supply contract for goods (refinites) at the E company office located D at macrodo; (b) indicated “B, in the address column”; and (c) affixed B’s seal imprint in the name following B.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the defendant forged one copy of the supply contract for the goods (refinite) in which B, a private document on rights and duties, is a joint and several surety.

2. On November 29, 2010, the Defendant: (a) delivered a copy of the supply contract for forged goods (refinite) as stipulated in paragraph (1) to C, who is aware of the forgery, at the E company office located D at a macro-si; and (b) exercised the same as the document duly formed.

3. On November 29, 2010, the Defendant issued one copy of the forged product supply contract (refinite) as stipulated in paragraph (1) to the victim’s E company office operated by the victim C at the time of macroscoping around November 29, 2010, when the victim refused to believe that the Defendant was unable to believe the Defendant’s credit.

However, the fact did not allow the defendant to become a joint and several surety in relation to the supply of steel materials from the owner B. Therefore, even if the defendant was supplied with steel from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the price.

The defendant deceivings the victim and is under his control.