A. In fact, the Defendant, at the request of the State-free loan B around February 28, 2013, agreed to become a joint guarantor to the lending company. However, around March 7, 2013, around the time of the preparation of a loan transaction guarantee contract, the Defendant, who was aware of the fact, agreed to prepare the said contract on behalf of the Defendant (no delegation of the authority to prepare the contract). Ultimately, even if B forged a document under the name of the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Although the summary of the facts charged was friendly between the Defendant and B, and the Defendant received a loan of KRW 3 million from C (State) around February 28, 2013, upon the request of the joint and several guarantors from B to accept the request of the joint and several guarantors and consented thereto, the Defendant was willing to file a false complaint against B in order to avoid the repayment of loan obligations.

On June 13, 2017, the Defendant filed a complaint with the public service center of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Police Station stating that “Around 263, the Defendant had received a loan from Defendant C (State) using a certified color pen, and there is no agreement with the joint guarantor of the above loan, and even though the Defendant did not prepare a loan transaction guarantee contract, the Defendant prepared a loan transaction guarantee contract without B’s consent, and submitted B and obtained a loan as a joint guarantor, which would be punished by fraud, forgery of private documents, or use of the above investigation document.”

However, the defendant receives a request from B on February 28, 2013.