A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 25, 1992, the Defendant was aware of the reply that “A loan amounting to KRW 100 million in the name of an individual, should be extended in the name of an individual, and a loan amount of KRW 100 million should be granted in the name of an enterprise” from a commercial bank D branch located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. However, the Defendant was aware of the reply that “A loan amounting to KRW 100 million shall be granted in the name of an enterprise.”

G Operation’s business registration certificate was forged to receive a loan.

On the same day, the Defendant received a copy of the above “H”’s business registration certificate by facsimile from the employee I of the said “H at the same place, and then changed the name column of the representative of the said business registration certificate from “G” to “E”, resident registration number column from “J” to “K”, and “business operator’s address” to “Seoul Mapo-gu M”, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant forged the business registration certificate (registration number 214-07-63035) under the name of the head of the Seocho Tax Office, which is an official document, for the purpose of uttering.

2. Around June 25, 1992, the Defendant, at a point D of the above commercial bank D branch, submitted the forged business registration certificate to F, as if it were issued genuinely.

[Defendant did not participate in the above business registration certificate at all, and G was aware that it was changed in the name of E through legitimate procedures.

The argument is asserted.

① However, the E’s business registration certificate is not G but necessary for Defendant side to obtain a loan from a financial institution; ② The personal information such as E’s resident registration number and address, etc. in order to register a business operator in the name of E through a normal procedure, and thus, Defendant was bound to participate in the procedure for changing the name of the business operator in any form; ③ Since E was entirely unaware of the change in the name of the business operator at the time