The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged regarding the private documents are acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the charge of the crime related to the forged bill of charge 5 billion won (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) was erroneous or erroneous for misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following grounds.

(1) Although the Defendant introduced the former share to raise funds necessary for acquiring H Co., Ltd., D and E, the Defendant did not have any forged or forged original cover notes or offered forged or forged cover notes as collateral.

(2) Even if the Defendant could not obtain the reasons why the loan itself displayed due to the issuance of a cover note in the process of arranging a loan, the facts charged of the charge of the relevant Article of the cover note in itself was strictly proven.

It cannot be seen that some credibility of E’s statement is recognized, and it cannot be recognized that the forgery of a cover bill is based only on E’s statement that is not known about the forgery method of a cover bill.

(3) In the absence of consistency, E is sentenced to a lower sentence of imprisonment with labor for three years on account of the transfer of responsibility to the Defendant, and thus, the motive of false statement is apparent, and thus, is not reliable.

The statements of K, G, P, and Q are merely the purport that the Defendant had conducted the actual activity of H in order to encourage the Defendant to buy loans, and do not support the fact that the Defendant received the loans by forging the cover notes in collusion with E.

(4) The Defendant’s profit is the actual arrangement fee for KRW 5 billion loan, and accordingly, the Defendant forged a cover note.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(5) As to the part of KRW 500 million fraud, G cannot be deemed the same as remitting KRW 500 million to the account under the name of H to the personal account of E. In fact, the profits actually acquired by the Defendant E, etc. is KRW 200 million, and the crime is established when the Defendant, etc. received KRW 200 million from K.