대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. As to the part concerning the forgery of securities and the exercise of forged securities among the facts constituting an offense indicated in the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted the Defendant of this part, despite the fact that the Defendant exercised the right to supplement the blank amount within the limit of twenty seven million won due to the relationship with F’s remaining debt exceeding twenty-seven million won. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and erroneous determination of facts.
2. The court below duly adopted the evidence and found the following facts or circumstances based on the evidence and the evidence. ① The Defendant, as a unregistered credit service provider, had engaged in money transactions several times from the early November 2009 to F on November 201, 2012, issued a promissory note with F’s signature and seal affixed thereon in comparison with F’s issue date, amount, and address column and F’s column in preparation for the Defendant’s disturbance. ② As to the reasons, F, in an investigative agency and the court below’s decision, stated that “The Defendant used a promissory note to locate the Defendant’s low interest and complete payment of money,” and the Defendant stated that “The Defendant paid KRW 100,000,000 to F’s name and seal on the promissory note to the Defendant at the beginning of October 2012.” The Defendant stated that the amount of money remaining after the issuance of the said note to F’s seal impression was KRW 200,000,000,0000,000.