All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) misunderstanding the facts as to each of the events committed on June 7, 2015, including forgery of a private document; (b) the use of the aforementioned investigation document on June 8, 2015; (c) false entry, such as electronic records, etc. on June 8, 2015; and (d) false entry, false entry, and electronic records, etc.; and (b) misunderstanding the legal principles thereof; and (c) misunderstanding the Defendant, as to the D building (hereinafter “instant building”) in the future, obtained the explicit or implied consent from E in making it possible for the Defendant to register the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral security (hereinafter

Even if you consider E's constructive consent exists, or the defendant thought that E's consent or constructive consent exists.

Therefore, even if the defendant prepared a power of attorney in the name of E and submitted it to the Seoul Southern District Court registry and made it completed in the future, such as cancellation of the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on the building of this case, the defendant does not meet the requirements for the establishment of the crime or is not guilty of the defendant's criminal intent.

At least, the defendant's act is not illegal as a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

In light of the fact-finding and legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), even if the Defendant had the building of this case registered the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of E, there was consent of E, or at least the Defendant believed to be such trust, and thus, the Defendant cannot cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of E upon applying for a loan of KRW 3.2 billion to

This can not be a deception for the Seoul Agricultural Cooperative.

In addition, at the time of the application for the above loan, the building of this case was leased by E and operated the telecom.

Even if E is the above lease, it can be set up against the right of neighboring Seoul Agricultural Cooperatives.