A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, while operating a singing room in the name of C, promised D to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 25 million for the goods in the name of C, to issue a promissory note in the name of C while preparing a loan certificate.

On September 24, 2009, the Defendant, without C’s permission at the “F” singing room located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, entered “F” column in the face value column of a promissory note with a color pen, “in the face value of e.g., KRW 000,000”, “in the face of December 26, 2009”, “in the face of the due date”, “in the face of the due date”, “in the face of January 15, 2010”, “In the face of the issuer’s address column,” and “C” in the issuer’s name column, and forged a promissory note in the name of C with a view to exercising the victim C’s seal impression affixed on the name.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1, exercised a promissory note with the name of payment for the goods as if it was actually issued as if it had been actually issued a forged promissory note with D who is unaware of the fact that the said securities were forged.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of a copy of a promissory note

1. Although the explicit permission of C to issue the alleged securities was not obtained, in view of the relationship between C and the Defendant at the time of issuance, C’s consent was obtained if C knew of the issuance of securities, and thus, it does not constitute an offense.

2. The fact that at the time of issuance of securities, the Defendant and C were in the same business relationship and C allowed the Defendant to use credit cards and passbooks under their own name, but it is rather difficult to view C to have permitted the Defendant to assume debt obligations under its own name or to issue securities, rather than that C has allowed the Defendant to do so.