Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal record] On November 18, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Daejeon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 17, 2014.

[Criminal facts]

1. Forging a private document;

A. On November 24, 2009, the Defendant committed the crime of November 24, 2009 stated that “B”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “B”, and “B” in the name column in the form of a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant’s mother and B, in order to raise the money to be used for the sports earth and sand gambling in the Seocho Agricultural Cooperatives located in the Seocho-gu Central Office of Seocho-si, Seoul, 2009, with the intent of obtaining a loan under the name of the Defendant’s mother and B, and with the Defendant’s name attached thereto.

B his seal has been affixed.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a letter of loan transaction agreement in the name of private document B, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

B. On July 26, 2010, the Defendant entered “B” in the name column, “B” in the column of the address column, “B” in the column of the loan amount, “B” in the column of the loan amount, and “B” in the column of the name, and “B” in the column of the name, on the grounds as set forth in the preceding paragraph, from the Seocho Agricultural Co., Ltd. in the above Seocho Agricultural Co., Ltd. on July 26, 2010.

B his seal has been affixed.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a letter of loan transaction agreement in the name of private document B, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. Exercising the relevant investigation document;

A. The Defendant, on November 24, 2009, committed the crime, at the time and place indicated in Section 1-A. At the same time and place, the Defendant exercised the agreement for a forged loan transaction with NA employees of the NA, who were aware of the forgery, as if it were a document duly formed.

B. On July 26, 2010, the Defendant, at the time, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1-b., exercised the agreement on the loan transaction as if it were a document that was duly formed, with the employees of the NAF, who were aware of the forgery.

Summary of Evidence

1...