All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the forgery of each private document and the uttering of the above-mentioned document against the Defendants, the indicted loan certificate was only prepared according to the request of D, and there was no fact that the Defendants forged and used it.

B. As to the charge of perjury against Defendant B, since the above loan certificate was duly established, Defendant B only testified as to the process of its preparation in civil procedure, and it does not constitute perjury as shown in the facts charged.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendants forged and used the loan certificate in the name D and E without being delegated with authority to prepare it as stated in the facts charged, and that Defendant B testified and testified in violation of memory after attending the court as a witness even though he knows that the above loan certificate was forged.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

① D and E consistently stated that the Defendants do not have any power to prepare a loan certificate from the investigative agency to the original trial.

② The Defendants provided meals like L and E at the time of preparing a loan certificate with D.

The argument is that L and E provided meals as D and the Defendants at the time, but they did not directly see or confirm the fact that L and E provided a loan certificate between D and the Defendants.

was stated.

③ At the time of filing a civil suit against D, the Defendants asserted that the date on which the above loan certificate was actually prepared was January 14, 201, which was the date on which the loan certificate was actually prepared, but was March 2, 2011 in the investigation process of the instant case.

Statements on the date of preparation, such as statements, and the details of the preparation, are not consistent as changes continuously.

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ conclusion is followed.