However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On December 27, 2011, the Defendant, without authority, forged one copy of the loan contract in the name of C, a private document in the name of the debtor column in the form of the loan transaction contract, with the intention to exercise the loan at the office located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, with a view to exercising the right and duty at the office for the loan loan. The Defendant, “C”, “gold million won” in the column of the first loan amount, “Seoul million won” on the date of the contract,” “on December 27, 2011”, “on January 14, 2016” in the due date column, “39%” in the loan interest rate and overdue interest rate column, “C” in the debtor’s name column, and forged one copy of the loan contract in the name of C, which is a private document in the name of the debtor, with the signature of the employee in charge of the right and duty, and deceiving the victim from 200 days to 350 million won in the name of the Defendant 274.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecution against the accused (including the C substitute part);

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of the amount of principal and interest repaid by credit service companies), loan certificates, loan transaction contracts, specifications of transactions, and loan transaction contracts;

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, Article 34 of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order is that the accused has forged a written contract under the name of the victim and acquired the money from the lending company.