The Defendant, from around May 27, 1979 to May 27, 2013, worked in the “GFFFFFFFFFFFFF, was arbitrarily prepared a loan agreement in the name of his/her family members, and received a loan from the Agricultural Cooperative to use the loan for personal debt repayment or real estate purchase costs.

On February 25, 2008, at the vicinity of GF I located in Seoyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City H, the Defendant stated “the matters concerning the principal” column of the loan transaction agreement with the pentyang-gu K1010-102, and “loan amount” column as “J” and “J” column. On February 25, 2008, the Defendant submitted a forged loan agreement to L (GFF) (the employee in charge of loans) who may know that it was genuinely prepared.

In addition, the Defendant, for the purpose of exercising, forged and exercised ten copies of the loan transaction agreements in the name of private document, J, M, and N, from that time until October 24, 2012, in the same manner as written in the list of offenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Statement made to N or M by the police;

3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of each loan transaction agreement (No. 3).

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

2. Of concurrent crimes, the sentencing elements against the Defendant are very poor in light of the first sentence of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, the method, content, frequency, etc. of the instant crime.

On the other hand, it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects all the facts charged in this case, the fact that there are parts to be considered in the motive of the crime in this case, and the fact that

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were taken into consideration.