The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On October 8, 2009, the Defendant without authority to exercise at a certified judicial scrivener office located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant: (a) “written waiver of the number of new shares; (b) the principal is the old shareholders of the your company; (c) on September 22, 2009, the board of directors meeting issued new shares 2,000 shares; (d) on September 22, 2009, the old shareholders decided to acquire shares in proportion to the proportional distribution of shares owned by the shareholders listed in the shareholders registry as of September 22, 2009, but the principal waives the entire amount of

The name of the shareholder A and immediately following the name of the shareholder, "E which is the United States of America", and has been in possession of the same in advance subsequent thereto.

After forging one copy of a letter of waiver of acceptance of new shares in the name of E, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations, the seal of E was affixed, and then submitted to the registration office for the application for the increase of corporate capital to the employees of the registration office in the Sung-dong Suwon District Court of Sung-dong, Sung-dong, Sung-dong, Seongbuk District

B. On December 27, 2011, the Defendant attended a general meeting of shareholders and the minutes of the board of directors without authority and entered the same as he/she exercised his/her voting rights, with the aim of exercising the said minutes at the said certified judicial scrivener office.

The minutes of the ordinary shareholders' meeting and the minutes of the board of directors under the E's name were forged with seals affixed to the E, and they were kept in the G Office of the revised Gu F corporation in Sungnam-gu on the same day.

2. The Defendant’s assertion did not obtain the explicit permission of E (hereinafter “E”) from the nominal holder at the time of preparing a letter of waiver of the issuance of new shares and each minutes. However, the Defendant merely entrusted the ownership of 6,000 shares in the name of E with the Defendant owned by E, and the Defendant was comprehensively delegated the authority to prepare documents as a shareholder of E at the time, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the crime of forging private documents and the crime of copying the aforesaid investigation documents cannot be established.

3. The records.