Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around September 11, 2009, the Defendant for alteration of private documents and D prepared two copies of the written agreement on loans for consumption with respect to the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 45 million from the F Tax Accountants Office located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Gyeonggi-do to pay to D. Around September 1, 2009.

The Defendant, at the above date, signed and sealed two parts of the Loan Agreement on Money Loan with D and the above agreement on money loan with each other at the same time and place, violated two horizontal lines on the part in the column for the loan period of the Loan Agreement on Money Loan with the Defendant’s possession by using an authorized-type pen. The column for damages for delay set forth in the column for damages “B shall compensate for the overdue interest at the rate of 30% per annum for the amount of repayment in the event B fails to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and shall be calculated every day in this case.”

Accordingly, the Defendant modified one copy of the monetary loan agreement in the name of D, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. Around January 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) submitted to the public service center of the Seoul East-gu Seoul East-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government District Court a written agreement on a loan for consumption that was modified as if it were duly constituted; and (b) exercised the said agreement.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on cash loans for consumption;

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act and Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime, and the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act can be objectively and rationally interpreted in consideration of the circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract.