The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts) stated D and E's name as a joint guarantor with the borrowing of money from C, and his seal was affixed directly by the defendant, and C requested the defendant to confirm D and E's intent to stand D and E's intent to stand D and E', but the defendant would pay his obligation.

The fact that the defendant believed and lent the money, the credit rating of the defendant was not bad at the time of borrowing the money, and it is sufficient to supplement relevant documents, such as whether the joint guarantor consented or his certificate of seal imprint, etc. after lending the money, and the phrase "a letter of loan or receipt," such as a loan certificate, receipt, etc., was written and written by the defendant.

Even if so, C was aware that each name of D and E was arbitrarily used by the Defendant.

In full view of the fact that there is a difference between the seal affixed on the loan certificate and the seal affixed on the loan certificate, etc., it cannot be seen that D or E’s seal cannot be seen as being affixed after the loan certificate, etc. was written, the Defendant used the forged loan certificate, etc. as if it was genuine to C who is aware of the forgery.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the defendant as to each of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Defendant 1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million from C on March 28, 2012, and KRW 2 million on February 21, 2013, while preparing a receipt on May 13, 2011, the Defendant forged a loan certificate, etc. or forged a promissory note as stated in the judgment, inasmuch as he/she did not use it, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

In addition, each of them is known that each of them was forged by C as the person who received the securities.