The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not know that the Defendant only had several co-defendant A and borrowed the next purchase fund. As such, there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud, nor did he receive any property or acquire any pecuniary benefits due to the loan.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below and the court of the trial, there are somewhat little points that the defendant read or write his/her writing, and the facts, etc. prepared by the co-defendant A of the court below, except the portion on which the name was written, are recognized.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence are: (a) at the time of the police investigation, the Defendant: (a) at the time of the police investigation, the co-defendant A and C, the co-defendants of the court below, sent money to hold a personal seal impression and removed them from their own name; (b) Hyundai Capital employee directly found his/her loan documents and asked to affix his/her seal and affixed his/her name on the loan application form (Evidence No. 35 pages); (c) the Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that he/she prepared the loan application; (b) the Defendant also heard the proposal that he/she would obtain profits if he/she disposes of a vehicle with one vehicle, and would obtain a larger profit if he/she uses the vehicle, and stated that he/she purchased the vehicle and sold the vehicle (Evidence No. 64, 137 pages); (c) the Defendant did not obtain the certificate of personal seal impression and did not obtain the loan in his/her name when he/she did not prepare an application for the loan; (d) the Defendant did not obtain the loan under his/her name.