The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On March 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for transfer or acquisition of a promissory note with C and D, a company manufacturing and selling female clothes (hereinafter “D”), and received and kept the delivery of a promissory note paper on the ground that C would be likely to issue a promissory note in writing.

A. On April 2014, the Defendant forged securities: (a) around early 2014, at the F Office of Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (b) signed a name tag of “D representative director C”; (c) stamped the name tag of “D representative director C” in the issuer column with the face value, date of issuance, and date of payment on a promissory note number G and H without authority despite the fact that C, the representative director of Geumcheon-gu, was entrusted with the consent or authority on the issuance of the promissory note in its name for the purpose of financing funds at the discount of the bill; and (d) stamped the name tag of the said company subsequent thereto.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged two promissory notes in the name of D representative director C, which are securities, for the purpose of exercising.

B. Around the beginning of April 2014, the Defendant, at the J office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, delivered forged promissory notes to K as if they were issued genuinely.

2. The witness L and C (hereinafter referred to as “L, etc.”) stated in this Court that only the Defendant had a pre-existing bill form, and did not have received a new bill form, or that the Defendant was issued a new bill form 10 (the witness L). The statements made by L, etc. are inconsistent with the actual facts or reversed the statements made by an investigative agency.

In addition, the argument that the bill was sent to the bank on March 7, 2014 when the bill was returned to one defendant, or that the bill was delivered to the customer on March 7, 2014.