The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the obligor of each of the instant loans is the Defendant; (b) the surety is D; (c) the Defendant has no pro rata relationship with D; (d) the Defendant did not confirm the intention of guarantee to D; and (d) the Defendant used part of each of the instant loans, the Defendant was sufficiently aware that there was no consent from D as to the establishment of the surety of each of the instant loans.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable for a joint principal offender as to the forgery and use of each of the loan documents of this case as the guarantor column of each of the loan documents of this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the Defendant were able to use money from the lending company with the opportunity to keep the resident registration tag in the name of the victim D (the remaining and the age of 40) as a joint guarantor.

A. On October 21, 2009, the Defendant and C signed the Defendant’s name on “D”, “E”, “F phone number”, “F”, “F in the address of the joint guarantor column of the monetary consumption lending and lending contract,” “F”, “F in the scope of guarantee period,” “12,50,000 won in the guarantee period,” “F in the guarantee period,” “3,00,000 from October 31, 201 to October 31, 201,” “3,00,000,000 won in the guarantee amount,” “3,00,000,000,000 won in the guarantee amount,” “48.91% in each year,” and “48.91% in each year.

Accordingly, the defendant and C forged one copy of the monetary consumption lending contract in the name of the victim D, which is a private document related to rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.

The defendant and C borrowed 3 million won from an employee who is not aware of the forgery in his/her job and delivered a forged monetary consumption lending contract as if it was duly formed.

2) The Defendant and C shall be Gangnam-gu Seoul on October 22, 2009.