Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On December 6, 2011, the Defendant lent KRW 5 million to C, KRW 5 million, and KRW 5 million to D, and the Defendant prepared and kept a certificate of borrowing KRW 10 million for the borrower C, joint and several guarantors D, and the borrower’s amount of rent KRW 10 million.

On September 2016, the Defendant submitted a certificate of borrowed money as evidence in the process of filing an application for a payment order for joint and several debt of KRW 10 million against D on September 2016, with intent to revise the content of the said certificate of borrowed money, consistent with the purport and cause of the claim.

1. On September 2016, the Defendant altered private documents: (a) without authority, without authority to exercise the inspection tool for the purpose of uttering; (b) added “one-half-half-half-half-half-half-half-half-half-half-day” to the blank column for the principal payment; and (c) subsequently changed one copy of the C’s loan certificate under the name of C on proof of fact by inserting the “two-half-half-half-half-year in the blank column for the public blank.”

2. On September 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) filed an application for a joint and several debt payment order with D on September 21, 2016; and (b) filed an application with D for a joint and several debt payment order with D; and (c) filed an application with D for a payment order with D, whose name is unknown; and (d) exercised one copy of the loan payment certificate issued in the name of C on the proof of the altered fact by submitting the

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as at the seventh public trial date);

1. The witness C’s statement in the fourth public trial protocol, and the witness D’s statement in the fifth public trial protocol (C and D’s statement is not consistent, specific, and different from other circumstances to be stated, and credibility is recognized in light of this court’s attitude of statement in this court.

C. D stated to the effect that “the Defendant does not agree to add the content of the instrument borrowed.”

Even if the addition of the defendant complies with the actual terms and conditions of the agreement, the defendant who is not the originator has the authority to add the contents at will.

such additional entry is the nominal owner's intent.