The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Fact-finding misunderstanding (1) 1-A : The Defendant paid KRW 10 million out of KRW 20 million borrowed from the injured party, and the remainder is not repaid with the fact that the injured party is not fully paid. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intention of defraudation.

Criminal facts

Section 1-B: The defendant explained the content that he provides a victim with a motor vehicle under the victim's name as a collateral and borrows money and received a certificate of personal seal impression from the injured party, so there is no deception as stated in the facts charged.

Criminal facts

Article 1-3, Paragraph (d) of the same Article: The defendant used a credit card under the name of the victim together with the victim after obtaining permission from the victim, and most of the payments were paid, but some of the payments were overdue due to the defendant's business difficulties in around 2016. Thus, the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and there was no intention of defraudation.

Criminal facts

No. 1-e and (f) : The Defendant received a loan under the name of the victim with permission from the injured party, and used it as a credit card payment, business fund, etc., and paid interest on the loan, but the Defendant was unable to repay the loan due to the difficulty of the Defendant’s business in around 2016. Thus, there is no intention to acquire it.

(2) The Defendant’s act of forging each private document, exercising each of the above investigation documents, falsely stating the original copy of the process certificate, and falsely stating the fact that the Defendant provided a motor vehicle as security and borrowed money from the injured party, and upon obtaining a certificate of seal imprint, prepares documents necessary for the creation of a mortgage and submits them to the public official in charge, so the Defendant’s intention is not recognized.

(3) On February 2016, the Defendant was aware that a fine for negligence is not imposed because he/she did not subscribe to liability insurance from the injured party, and subscribed to liability insurance with the victim’s permission. Therefore, the electronic records insured are recorded.