The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Indictment

1. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant forged a private document: (a) around Seongdong-gu Seoul, on the part of Seongdong-gu, the Defendant: (b) stated “E”, “F”, “G”, and “E” in the content column by using a computer to borrow money; (c) stated “E”, “E”, “F”, and “E shall agree to borrow three times to creditors D with the view to borrowing KRW Ha and E”; and (d) signed and sealed E’s seal imprinted in the name of E of the joint and several guarantors of the loan certificate printed out on the date of preparation.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged a copy of the borrowed certificate in the name of E, a private document on rights and obligations.

2. At the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, the Defendant sent to D a forged E’s borrowing certificate, as described in paragraph 1, to the same effect that the Defendant actually formed the forged E’s borrowing certificate.

Accordingly, the defendant exercised a forged private document.

Judgment

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the defendant and E, appears to have the same interest in civil litigation between E and D. The facts charged in this case act in favor of E in the above civil litigation, ii) the testimony of D asserted that the loan certificate in this case was not forged is supported by the serial numbers issued in the name of the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City I Dong, i.e., the defendant and E’s personal seal impression (issuance of each personal seal impression). iii) In full view of the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved the facts charged in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.