The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, along with the introduction of B and C, knew of the fact that he purchased pine trees from D with the introduction of B and D, in order to guarantee the return of the purchase price to D, a promissory note (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”) and a power of attorney (hereinafter “the power of attorney of this case”) in the name of D themselves and his father’s ancillary parent to collect the claim.

Around December 6, 2013, the Defendant forged private document: (a) at the Gjoint Law Office located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the title “A” and the content column, stating “D and F” as “A” in the delegating column; and (b) stating “A” at will in the mandatary column as “A”.

Accordingly, the defendant forged D's power of delegation on rights and obligations or certification of facts for the purpose of exercising.

B. Around December 6, 2013, the Defendant entered “A” on the left side of the “B” portion of the Promissory Notes, which was the issuer’s “D, F,” “B,” “B,” “F,” “F million won,” “F million won,” and “B4 September 2013.”

Accordingly, the defendant altered the securities in the name of D for the purpose of exercising the rights.

C. Around December 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) drafted a notarial deed with respect to the said promissory note; (b) delivered forged power of attorney-at-law in charge of authentication and altered promissory note as if they were genuinely formed; and (c) exercised the said deed.

On May 19, 2017, the fraud defendant submitted to the above court a notarial deed of promissory notes, even though the notarial deed of promissory notes was made by a forged power of attorney and an altered promissory note, and submitted it to the above court, A, the debtor F, and the defendant.