Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant related to promissory notes is a person working as the head of the agricultural product team in Busan Seo-gu C Co., Ltd. located in B.

On November 2008, the Defendant purchased a quarter of molds powder from E companies operated by the victim D, and installed it at the C companies located in Daegu-gun District Office, and around December of the same year, the Defendant issued one promissory note of KRW 33,000,000 at face value and one set of note of KRW 60,000 at face value and one set of note of KRW 60,000 at face value.

In the event of extension of the due date for a bill or check, the seal impression reported to the financial institution is affixed. However, in fact, when the due date for the bill or check is extended, the defendant has a plan to place a seal different from the seal impression reported to the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation when the date for the payment of the bill or check is extended, so even if the bill or check is presented for payment, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the bill or check at the due date, even if the due date is extended by the victim.

Nevertheless, around October 5, 2008, the Defendant, at the E-company office located in Daegu-gun, the E-company office located in Daegu-gun, requested the victim to extend the payment date on the face of the payment date, and requested the victim to extend the payment date on the face of the week. The Defendant received the said bill from the victim, and then changed the payment date from "O. 16. 2008" to "O. 25. 2009. 25. 2009" and affixed a seal different from the reported seal impression.

In addition, around February 15, 2009, the Defendant received the above bill from the victim in the same manner at the above E company office and changed the date of payment from “ February 25, 2009” to “ March 25, 2009,” and affixed seals different from the reported seal impression.”

Accordingly, the defendant obtained the amount of property benefits by extending the payment date of the bill from the victim.

2. The Defendant’s fraud relating to the check of the number of shares is on the same ground as the above paragraph 1.