A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) as a creditor of a loan to C, the Defendant obtained prior consent from C to obtain the head of C and D (C’s father)’s seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint, etc., and completed the proxy form stated in the facts charged in the instant name (hereinafter “the proxy form of this case”).

In other words, the Defendant actually lent KRW 100 million to C, and the account in the name of C, D, E (C's mother) that the Defendant borrowed from C, etc. was not entirely used by the Defendant, but also used for financial transactions by C and D.

The statements in investigation agencies and courts of C and D are not reliable.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty.

B. The prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence of one year’s imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances are revealed.

① The power of attorney of this case is the power of attorney that C and D designate the Defendant as their own agent and borrowed 88 million won from the Defendant as interest rate of 2% on May 10, 2006 and as of May 10, 201, and D delegate all the authority of a notary public to prepare a fair deed of monetary consumption and lending contract for joint and several guarantee within the limit of 336,200,000 won between 10 years and 10,000 won.

② The Defendant, using the head of C and D’s seal imprint and the certificate of his seal imprint, has prepared the instant proxy form.

However, C and D do not have consistently concluded a monetary consumption lending contract or a joint and several surety contract with the defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the defendant was delegated by the delegation of this case.