The defendant shall be innocent.

Public Prosecutor's Office

1. Around December 2009, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) indicated that “The Defendant shall pay KRW 70 million (70,000,000) borrowed from A from August 2007 to June 30, 2009; (b) indicated that “The Defendant shall pay KRW 70,000,000,000,” and then copied one copy of the loan certificate using the copy of the loan certificate.” (c) written “D debtor” and the debtor’s seal imprinted in advance with the copy of the loan certificate.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising authority, the defendant has forged two copies of the loan certificate in the name of D, a private document concerning rights and obligations, respectively.

2. On December 20, 2010, the Defendant: (a) had a public-service advocate of the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court Branch of the Seo-gu District Court, Seo-gu Branch of the Korea Legal Aid Corporation; (b) had the public-service advocate submit a copy of the forged loan certificate to the person who was unaware of such forgery, accompanied by the Plaintiff’s preparatory document, to be submitted as if it were duly constituted, along with the copy of the forged loan certificate to the person who was unaware of the forgery.

Judgment

The Defendant consistently denies from the police to this court.

The amount column of the loan certificate and each seal affixed on the debtor column are the same as the seal imprint of D's seal imprint, and D's seal imprint certificate (D's certificate issued on June 11, 2009) is attached, and it is connected with the loan certificate and the seal imprint certificate.

In addition, the above order support case No. 2010Kadan21003 is a judgment that partially accepted the defendant's claim based on the judgment that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was forged, and the losing D appealed appealed against this (Tgu District Court Decision 2011Na25976), but the withdrawal of appeal on May 9, 2013 is deemed to be the withdrawal of appeal.