The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the charge for the forgery of private documents and the charge for the exercise of the above investigation documents, the Defendant forged the above transaction agreement, on the ground that D’s seal imprint seals affixed to D’s seal imprint, F’s seal imprint, and G seal affixed to D’s seal imprint.

Since it is believed that there is no doubt that there is no intention to commit the crime.

B. As to the complaint on the fraud of the loan, the Defendant renounced the loan in advance for the payment of the purchase price, and the Defendant took the lead of D and K, so this part of the complaint is true.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on specific grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., (i) in order to apply for the loan of this case, the Defendant: (a) visited Dogology, F, and G, and opened an account in the name of F, G, and submitted all documents necessary for the loan, including F and G transaction agreements (Evidence No. 14, 15), F, and G seal imprints signed by F and G, and the amount of F and G seal imprints in blank, and submitted all documents necessary for the loan; (b) if the transfer procedure is performed, the loan can be conducted at the same time; and (c) the instant transaction contract (Evidence No. 32) was signed with the same content as the above transaction contract submitted by the Defendant; and (d) the official seal of “certified judicial scrivenerV” was affixed with the official seal of “D” after the loan of this case; and (e) the Defendant visited the above office as the process of issuing the contract of this case, and thus, could have easily been confirmed by the certified judicial scrivener at the time of this case.