Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 17, 2008, as stated in the indictment on April 8, 2008, the Defendant is clear that it is a clerical error in writing that grants an execution clause to a promissory note notarial deed, and there is no influence on guaranteeing the Defendant’s right to defense, and is corrected ex officio.

At the Dhap-si Office of Law, in fact, a notary public in C, did not bear the obligation of KRW 100 million against E, however, the attorney-at-law in charge of law stated that E bears the obligation of KRW 100 million, and then the attorney-at-law in charge of law who does not know the fact thereof, has the attorney-at-law in charge of law conduct the authentication of promissory notes amounting to KRW 100 million at face value, and has it kept in the Dhap Office of Law

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement to the effect that a notarial deed of promissory notes as stated in the judgment of the defendant has been prepared;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. - Claim attachment and assignment order (2008 Other 2666);

1. According to the above evidence, a notarial deed, a notarized letter, a power of attorney, and a certificate of personal seal impression (the defendant requires the preparation of a promissory note notarial deed as indicated in the judgment on April 8, 2008; the defendant applied for an attachment and assignment order on his/her own benefit as the title of execution and received an attachment and assignment order on April 24, 2008; the defendant used the entire benefit in accordance with the above attachment and assignment order; the defendant did not deliver the said promissory note or a notarial deed to E as the creditor; and the defendant also stated that "the above promissory note has a match in preparation for a security rather than taking legal procedures." The defendant stated that "the notarial deed is an essential act for match, without demanding the complainant (E)" (Evidence No. 1).

According to this, the defendant's act is merely the defendant's benefit without the intention to bear the true obligation of bill.