The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fabrication of private documents and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, the Defendant prepared a document in the name of the said borrower with L/C consent from the complainant F, H, and J, who is the borrower, and the Defendant does not constitute the crime of forging private documents and uttering of the falsified investigation document against the said complainant.

B. As to fraud, a limited liability company’s Alleys (hereinafter “Alleys”) paid transport charges to the complainants to the Defendant. Since the complainants subsequently ordered the Defendant’s claim for the above transport charges to be preserved bonds, the complainants attached the Defendant’s claim to be preserved bonds and received the transport charges, and thus, the complainants and the complainants in this case did not suffer losses.

Therefore, criminal fraud is not established against the defendant.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, prior to the judgment of ex officio, the Prosecutor filed an application for amendments to the indictment “as stated in the part concerning the fabrication of private documents and the uttering of private documents” among the facts charged in the instant case with the same date, time, and place as indicated in the part concerning the uttering of private documents and the uttering of private documents” around June 11, 2013. Since this court granted permission and changed the subject of the trial, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained. However, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case, even if there were the grounds for ex officio reversal, and thus, the determination of the judgment of the court below and the court below on the assertion of the misapprehension of facts regarding the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private documents is still subject to the judgment of this court

The defendant was received from the client for convenience and the contract of carriage was arranged between individual cargo carriers and the client.