The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

A. On July 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) at the Defendant’s house located in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun; (b) had the Defendant’s wife establish a provisional attachment on the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 402 Dong 301, located in the name of the Defendant’s wife; and (c) had the Defendant’s living together F, who is aware of the fact, not authorized to enter the loan certificate as a joint guarantor, but was paid in installments in six months from June 30, 201 by using a computer. At the last time, the Defendant: 5% of the interest; (d) had the Defendant prepare a loan certificate stating the contents of “Ye-gun, Jindo-gun, and D,” and then forged one copy of the loan certificate in the name of the above D, which is a private document, by affixing the Defendant’s personal seal on his own.

B. On July 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) delivered the forged loan certificate to the said F, as if it were duly formed, to the said F; and (b) exercised the said certificate.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant consistently prepared a loan certificate with D as a joint and several surety since the investigative agency up to this court, the Defendant asserts that it was prepared with D’s consent.

On the other hand, D makes a statement that seems to correspond to the facts charged in this case by asserting that investigative agencies and this court did not allow the defendant to be a joint and several surety in the loan certificate.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the defendant obtained consent from D at the time of preparing the loan certificate of this case. The issue of this case is whether D's statement in the court and investigative agency is the only direct evidence as to the defendant's forgery and use of private documents, and the credibility of the above statement is the issue of this case.

(b) Domins, 1 D.