A. From around 2004, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 100 million to D; (b) prepared a certificate of loan under the name of D (hereinafter “the certificate of loan”); and (c) at the time D signed directly on the name next to the above certificate of loan; and (d) there was no fact that the Defendant forged the above certificate of loan.

Therefore, on the premise that the Defendant forged the loan certificate of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the use of a falsified investigation document, attempted fraud and the charges of this case.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant, although he did not lend KRW 100 million to D on or around 2004, forged the loan certificate in the name of D and committed each of the facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

1) The defendant's confession at the investigative agency or at the court of first instance differs from his/her testimony at the court of appeal or at the court of appeal cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of his/her confession. In determining the credibility of his/her confession, the credibility of his/her confession shall be determined in consideration of whether the content of the confession's statement itself has objective rationality, what is the motive or reason, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what is not contrary or contradictory to the confession among other evidence than the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008). 2) The defendant in the interrogation of the suspect in the prosecution.