The Defendant, while operating an insurance agency in the name of “AD branch”, borrowed money from the victim E who was aware of the lack of operating funds, but was aware of the fact that “I would no longer lend money to the party, so I would like to hear from the victim that “I would no longer lend money if I would like to do so. I would like to say, I would like to say that I would no longer lend money to the party. I would like to say that I would like to say that I would no longer lend money to the party. I would like to say that I would like to give the Defendant’s wife F real estate to be offered as security to the victim, by forging the joint guarantor column of the borrowed deed, and by using it.

1. On March 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated the title “H” coffee shop located in Busan-gu Y, stating that “The amount of loan is KRW 200 million; (b) the date of loan; (c) April 10, 2017; and (d) interest on loan until October 10, 2015; and (d) paid two or more copies of the loan from November 10 to 2.5; and (c) written the name and resident registration number of the wife F in the “joint guarantor” column of the loan certificate; and (d) written the name and resident registration number of F after the name of F.

Accordingly, the defendant, for the purpose of uttering, forged a copy of a loan instrument in the name of joint and several guarantors who are private documents related to rights and obligations under F.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, at a place specified in paragraph (1) and at a place, exercised the above-mentioned E as if it were a document duly formed with the above forged loan certificate.

3. The defrauded presented to the victim E a copy of the forged loan certificate at the date, time, and place referred to in paragraph 1, and the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “I would make a payment without the mold if I believe that the wife in question gave a joint and several surety, and I would have lent KRW 200 million to B.”

However, the above loan certificate was forged as stated in Paragraph 1, and at the time, the defendant did not have any particular property, and the amount of KRW 500 million due to the deficit in operation.