The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the loan amount borrowed 60 million won by mistake of facts, and the loan certificate dated 12, 2007, which the defendant entered as the debtor (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) was forged by E, it was true that the defendant filed a complaint for the crime of forging private documents, etc.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may file a false complaint with the Defendant that he/she forged the instant loan certificate and issued it to E, thereby finding the Defendant’s assertion that he/she was guilty. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(1) On July 12, 2007, the Defendant drafted a written agreement with G Ha, Ha and E, who represented by G, at a certified judicial scrivener office located in Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. The agreement included that the Defendant would pay 60 million won to E.

In light of this, there was no reason to not prepare the loan certificate of this case equivalent to the amount that the defendant should pay to E as above on the same day. On the other hand, E seems to have no reason to forge the loan certificate of this case in the name of the defendant with the same contents as the defendant agreed to pay 60 million won in the above agreement.

(2) At the time, F, who had worked as a secretary at the above certified judicial scrivener office, stated that the investigative agency and the investigative agency consistently prepared the loan certificate of this case and the statement of performance under the name of the defendant on the same date (hereinafter referred to as the “written statement of performance of this case”) are written in a way that is covered by the existing form used at the office where he works in question.