beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged: (a) on October 11, 2012, the Defendants conspired to act in collusion with the law firm G located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and without authority for the purpose of exercising it by the law firm G in Seocho-gu, Seoul; (b) on the authorized column, the Defendants entered “A, Jongno-gu, Seoul H202” and “I and the Seocho-gu, Seoul J” in the delegating column and held A
I’s seal impression shall be affixed to “B”, “B”, and “B”, “B” and “B” in the face value column, and “B” in the column of issuance date shall be indicated in the column of “B” and “B” and shall be indicated in the column of issuance date, and shall be indicated in the column of “Seoul Seocho-gu J and I” and held by A next name.
At the same time, I affixed the seal imprint of I, respectively, one Promissory Notes in the name of I and one power of attorney.
The next date, at the same time and at the same place, the above-mentioned promissory notes and the power of attorney were forged to the employees of the law firm as if they were duly formed.
The Defendants immediately had an attorney-at-law belonging to the said law firm prepare a fair deed of a promissory note, which is subject to compulsory execution on the said promissory note as of 2785, at the same place of the deed, and had him/her keep it in a place around that time, thereby exercising forged valuable securities and private documents, and having the attorney-at-law enter a false fact in the original copy of the fair deed, and exercised it.
Defendant
B around July 18, 2016, at the Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court of 157 Seoul, the Defendant’s claim for loans of KRW 135 million against the Defendant’s Victim K with the Defendant’s obligation jointly and severally issued promissory notes as above.
The victims asserted that “the victims shall jointly and severally file a lawsuit claiming a loan of KRW 135 million with the Defendant,” and that “the victims shall pay the amount of KRW 135 million,” and based thereon, submitted a fair certificate as stated in paragraph 1.
However, in fact, the victim I co-existence the above claim against the victim K.