The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal E, L, M, etc., Defendant A’s loans to E around March 18, 2003, KRW 4.54 million out of KRW 7 million lent by Defendant A to E around March 18, 200, and the remaining KRW 2.460,00 is Defendant A’s personal money.

Furthermore, Defendant B did not lend KRW 4 million to E on August 2, 2002.

E fully repaid the above 7 million won, Defendant A lent 4,540,000 won to a person who is not a face-to-face loan but a face-to-face loan (Evidence No. 28) and was not repaid, and submitted to civil procedure by forging the loan certificate (Evidence No. 28).

The above loan certificate is different from the loan certificate (Evidence No. 25 of the evidence record) kept by E, and is written by another written body.

There is no credibility in light of the fact that the book book that seems consistent with the Defendants’ assertion is highly likely to be altered by Defendant A.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The following circumstances cited by the court below in light of the facts and records revealed by the court below, i.e., (1) 50,000 won (the principal amount of KRW 4,700,000) paid by the F on behalf of E around August 1, 2006, when considering the entries in the book, i.e., the principal amount of KRW 4,540,000,000 (the principal amount of KRW 3.80,000,000) that Defendant B lent to E around August 1, 2002, not the principal amount of KRW 4,50,000,00,000, the principal amount of the loan, which Defendant B lent to E, is difficult to view that the loan certificate submitted by Defendant A in a civil lawsuit, and the seal affixed to E is recognized by the E (E). However, it is difficult to believe that Defendant A had the same reason in light of the fact that the loan certificate was forged, and the above assertion was insufficient.