The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant has not received C’s seal impression certificate from E, a real operator of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

E, with the knowledge that in borrowing money from D and M, the defendant stated that C is a joint and several surety for the defendant's debt to D and M, he had F, a representative director of C, affix the C's corporate seal impression on the power of attorney to prepare a notarial deed for cash loan, and issued two copies of C's corporate seal impressions to prepare a notarial deed to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted all of the facts charged of this case on the basis of the statements of E which are not reliable. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Each of the instant charges Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from D, etc. under the pretext of the construction price of the building C, and agreed with E to guarantee the Defendant’s debt of KRW 300 million, and received two copies of a personal seal impression and a seal impression from E for this purpose.

On the other hand, the Defendant, using the above certificate of seal impression and seal imprint, included 200 million won in the above 300 million won in a notarial deed to the effect that “C is a joint and several surety for a debt of 500 million won.”

1) On June 9, 2009, the Defendant: (a) delegated the preparation of an authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption with the content of the debt amount “250,000,000 won; (b) creditor D; (c) the date of the loan; (d) June 9, 2009; (c) the date of repayment; (d) “A”; (d) “A”; (e) the date of repayment; (e) “20%”; (e) the interest “20%”; (e) the “C representative director F”; (e) the “F of the C representative director F”; and (e) the address “Ysan-gu G”.