The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not forge or exercise any certificate of borrowed money or certificate of borrowed money in this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On February 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around February 2016, the Defendant entered “B” in the name column of joint and several liability using the scriptive pen on the paper of the tea loan certificate; (b) forged a private document loan certificate with respect to another person’s rights and obligations by stating “C”, etc. in the resident registration number column; (c) around February 16, 2016, the Defendant exercised it by allowing D, who was unaware of the fact, to deliver as if the document was duly formed. (b) On March 2016, 2016, the Defendant entered “B” in the name column of joint and several liability on the paper of the tea loan certificate; and (d) forged a private document with respect to another person’s rights and obligations; and (e) exercised the document with the name “B” as if he were aware of the fact that the document was forged and delivered to B; and (e) exercised the document with the name “B” as if he were aware of it.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds as delineated below.

① Although the Defendant asserted that D was the first of the instant loan loan certificate in the court of civil procedure instituted against the Defendant and B, there is a high possibility that the entry of the Defendant’s part in the debtor’s column of the instant loan certificate and the written statement of the Defendant are identical.

② The Defendant borrowed money from D and borrowed money in civil procedure brought by D against the Defendant and B.