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

C, D, based on the fact that if the annual income of the loan applicant exceeds 10,000,000 won, it can obtain a loan by 70% of the market price of the relevant real estate as collateral, it would be possible to obtain a loan by using the real estate in question, E, by paying only the nominal lender (tentatively named loan) and purchasing real estate such as unsold officetels, and then obtaining a loan under the name of the name of the name of the nominal lender as collateral, it has conspired with the nominal lender to receive the loan from the financial institution using a forged employment certificate as if the nominal lender was a company with a certain income, the receipt of tax withholding

C and D, according to the above public offering, around December 2009, entered into a sales contract as if the defendant were to purchase the Ftel 215, which was introduced through E as the nominal lender and purchased only the down payment, and purchased only the down payment, and then sought a loan as security.

However, with knowledge of the fact that it is difficult for the defendant to provide the above real estate as security even if he did not have a certain place of work and income, through E and G, that the defendant paid income tax of KRW 524,01 by receiving KRW 26,523,251 in the name of the representative director of the above company in the name of J and receiving KRW 26,523,251 in the name of the representative director of the J of the above company and paying the income tax of KRW 524,014 in the amount of 208, each forged one of the above J's "tax withholding receipt" under the name of the above J, which proves that it is difficult for the defendant to provide the above real estate as security even if he did not have to provide the above real estate as security. On December 10, 2009, the defendant applied for a loan to the 14-dong Saemaul Bank and submitted the forged application for the loan and one copy of the employment income withholding receipt to K as above.

However, the facts are that the defendant, C, and D did not have the intention or ability to repay all loans, and the defendant served as an employee in the above company.