The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. Summary of the facts charged

1. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant is the amount received after delivery to D in the office of D (State) located in the Southern District of Incheon District (hereinafter “D”) on September 2, 2014, using a computer network protocol for the purpose of uttering without authority for the purpose of uttering, on the paper A4, using a computer network protocol for the purpose of uttering. “The amount of gold: gold: 267,424,080,000 won (WW 267,424,080),” and “E (State)” (hereinafter “E”).

As to the above amount, the payment guarantee shall be made by the LOF and the payment deadline shall be December 31, 2014.

Then, “D’s official seal and F’s official seal were affixed on the name of H, respectively, after indicating “, 02 September 2014,” “D representative G”, “D representative G”, and “F representative H”.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a letter of payment assurance under the name of F representative director H, a private document concerning rights and obligations (hereinafter “instant letter of payment assurance”).

2. On September 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of 610 guaranteed obligations (hereinafter “instant civil lawsuit”); (b) submitted the instant payment undertaking to a court employee who was aware of the forgery through I and J, and exercised the said document as genuinely constituted the instant payment undertaking in the Changwon District Court located in 1993-20 as the smuggling was sealed at the time of smuggling; and (c) filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of 610 guaranteed obligations (hereinafter “instant civil lawsuit”).

2. According to the Defendant’s statement and the police interrogation protocol against H, etc., it is recognized that the Defendant affixed the F’s official seal on the side of H’s name without the express consent of H’s representative director, who is the name of the letter of payment assurance in this case.

Meanwhile, the crime of forgery or alteration of a private document refers to the preparation of a document by gathering another person’s name from a person who is not authorized to prepare and alter the private document. Therefore, if the title holder explicitly or implicitly consented to the preparation and alteration of the private document, it does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document, and on the other hand, it did not have the real consent of the title holder at the time