The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) B’s statement is not consistent with the purchase price of destroyed goods, the details of obligations and the amount thereof, etc., and also acknowledged the fact that B voluntarily entered the Defendant’s office from time to time. In light of this, there is sufficient circumstance to deem B to have forged the loan certificate under the name of the Defendant.

Rather, although the defendant could not be deemed to have proved that the defendant's accusation of B with the forgery of the loan certificate constitutes false facts, the court below recognized that the defendant was not guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the judgment.

① In the first accusation of B as the crime of forging and utteringing private documents, B changed B’s certificate of borrowing KRW 30 million at the Defendant’s home with a loan certificate of KRW 55 million at the Defendant’s office. In other words, the Defendant changed B’s certificate of borrowing KRW 55 million with a loan certificate of KRW 65 million at the Defendant’s office. The Defendant asserted that B was forged by taking the Defendant’s seal.

② However, the Defendant asserted that he included a loan certificate of KRW 30,000,000,000, written by the Defendant in his own possession, and that, in the case of a loan certificate of KRW 65,000,000, the Defendant’s pilot C’s seal appears to have been kept together with several seals, including three the Defendant’s seal in his own house, two the deceased Defendant’s husband D’s seal, two the Defendant’s husband’s seal in his husband, and the Defendant’s other Nonparty’s South-North East F’s seal, and an unknown person’s seal, etc.

The painting of the pilot C is also attached to the borrowed document with the seal of many persons.