2. The judgment is favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant, the victim of the crime of forging the instant private document and uttering of the falsified document, appears not to have been punished by the Defendant, and that the principal and interest of the instant defrauded was repaid every month until January 2013, and that there was no record of punishment prior to the instant crime, etc.

However, the crime of this case is committed by taking into account the following factors: (a) in collusion with the lending consultant in collusion with the Defendant even though the Defendant did not have the qualification and ability to pay the loan; (b) the Defendant prepared a loan application form in the name of the Defendant; and (c) obtained a total of KRW 17 million by using the loan application form in its name; (c) the nature of the crime is not easy in light of the background of the crime; (d) the amount of the fraud; (c) the agreement with the victim was not reached; (d) the balance with the loan consultant finalizeded after being sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million as an accomplice of the crime of this case; and (e) other factors such as the motive for the crime of this case; (e) the Defendant’s character and conduct; (e) the Defendant’s character and environment; (e) family relationship

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.