All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

The defendant shall make compensation 45.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, among the facts charged in the instant case, N merely permits the Defendant to register his/her name as a internal director of S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) with the inside director of S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”), and did not accept a promissory note even if it is issued.

If so, the defendant issued N (N) as stated in this part of the facts charged on February 7, 2013, a promissory note with a face value of 0,000 Won Won Won Won Won Won Won (hereinafter “N”) as S, as stated in this part of the facts charged, and for the purpose of notarial acts, a notary public's presentation of it to the above office's director of the above office and the attorney-at-law in charge of notarial acts to P at the above office's grain office constitutes the forgery and exercise of a promissory note, which is a security.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the forgery and use of forged or falsified securities, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Of the facts charged in the instant case, “a false report” as defined in the crime of re-performance of the original copy of the process deed is not only false but also includes misrepresentation of the reporter’s qualification, personal name, or proxy qualification.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, around February 7, 2013, the defendant's act of having a P, as stated in this part of the facts charged, prepare an original of a bill of lading that N in-house directors of S, as stated in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter "certificate of promissory note of this case") to the effect that the N in-house directors of S, recognize the compulsory execution of the Promissory note of this case, constitutes an act of making a false report with respect to a notary public and making a false statement with respect to the original instrument of this case entered

In this part, this part.