1. On March 3, 2016, the Defendant made a false report as if D borrowed KRW 30 million from E on February 3, 2016 to an attorney-at-law, a notary public of the said law firm, who is a notary public, of the said law firm, without having borrowed KRW 30 million from E, using D’s personal seal impression and seal which was kept by the notary public for the purchase and sale of D’s vehicles at the office of “law firm”, which was in custody of D’s relationship with the Defendant. On March 3, 2016, the Defendant made the said F record of the said false contents in a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement, and exercised it by having D keep a notarial deed stating the false facts at that place.

2. On June 25, 2016, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) stated that the obligee, using the gate, entered the address “J Apartment K, J Apartment K, name “D,” and resident number “L” in the column of joint and several sureties, which is the Defendant, and affixed a seal of D’s name and seal.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a letter of loan in the name of D, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

3. The Defendant, at the time, and at a place specified in the foregoing paragraph (2), exercised one copy of the forged loan certificate as if it were a document duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Each investigation report, full certificate of registered matters, and case search of B;

1. Application of statutes concerning criminal records;

1. Articles 228 (1), 229, 231, and 234 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent offenders are themselves.