Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 8, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business at the Seoul Central District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 16, 2016.

1. Crimes related to C Stock Companies;

A. On March 2014, the Defendant conspiredd with a credit service provider (E) who was unable to obtain a loan by forging the Defendant’s application for a loan in the name of the Defendant’s wife (hereinafter “E”), by forging the application for a loan in the name of the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant: (a) laid off the cell phone and passbook in the mutual infinite-si, Changwon-si; and (b) notified the above E of his resident registration number; (c) around that time, the Defendant: (a) stated C’s mobile phone and passbook in the column for the amount of loan limit in the form of loan transaction agreement; (b) stated C’s loan transaction agreement form as “3,00,000 won; (c) March 11, 2014; (d) on the expiration date column; (b) stated “38% per annum in the loan interest rate column; (c) written “F” in the resident registration number column; and (d) signed the “D” in the customer name column; and (d) submitted it to the said company by registered mail to allow the loan manager to peruse the loan transaction agreement.

Accordingly, in collusion with the above E, the Defendant forged and exercised one copy of the loan transaction agreement, which is a private document on the rights and obligations of the above D name.

B. On March 11, 2014, in collusion with the above E on March 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) forged the above D’s loan transaction agreement; and (b) allowed the employees in charge of lending the victim C&A to peruse it; and (c) the said employees received the phone call from the said employees to verify whether the said employees applied for the loan to the said D, using the cell phone received in advance from the Defendant.

However, in collusion with the above E, the defendant did not file an application for a loan by gathering the name of the above D, and the defendant was specified at the time.