1. Around March 4, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, stating, “The victim D has a friend who works for the son club, that the friend is necessary to pay money, and that the friend will pay interest on the third part of the month if he/she lends money.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to obtain the interest of the third part of the month in which the money is given to the friendly who works on the vehicle.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 29 million on the same day from the injured party, KRW 2.9 million on March 31, 201, KRW 2.9 million on April 11, 201, and KRW 36.6 million on April 11, 201, respectively, from one bank account under the name of the Defendant.

2. On March 10, 201, the Defendant forged a private document under the title “a certificate of borrowing” in the name of “a certificate of borrowing” in order to pretend that he/she borrowed money from D at the F Office of the Defendant’s service located in Gyeonggi-si to borrow money from D, as shown in the foregoing paragraph 1, in order to conclude that he/she borrowed money from D to another person, the Defendant shall be deemed to have “a certificate of borrowing” and “a certificate of borrowing”. On May 5, 2011, the amount of the loan shall be determined as the due date for payment by the clerk, 3% per month, and the interest shall be paid by the borrower to the obligee on the eightth day of each month or more. If the interest is in arrears for a period of one month or more, the obligee would not raise any objection even if the obligee claims the full amount of the loan and take criminal responsibility for the loan, and on March 8, 2011, the name of the borrower, address, and address of GD: The name and address of the obligee.”

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a copy of the loan certificate in G name, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

3. On March 11, 201, the Defendant issued the foregoing investigation document to D who is aware of the forgery in I apartment in the event of Gyeonggi-do.