The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant in the instant facts charged did not borrow money from B around April 25, 2016, and was aware that the certificate of borrowing KRW 45 million was forged by C while lending money to B wife C. However, on June 20, 2017, the Defendant applied for the order for the payment of loans to B, etc. as if the claim against B exists in the Cheongju District Court’s Cheongju Branch Branch, and exercised it by attaching and submitting the said certificate of borrowing as if the said certificate was actually prepared.

On June 20, 2017, the accused was issued a payment order based on the forged loan certificate as above, but the debtor's above support 2017da2918Gada2918 for loan claims filed by the debtor, by deceiving the court as if there were claims against B, and by deceiving the court, to jointly and severally pay 45 million won to the defendant, the accused was issued a settlement recommendation order to provisionally seize the D excavation machines owned by B and acquired them by receiving KRW 13,75,618 as dividend on December 22, 2018.

Judgment

The C's statement (including the statement in the investigative agency) is flexible as evidence corresponding to the facts charged.

(B) Around January 2018, C becomes aware of the forgery of a loan certificate and the Defendant is unaware of whether the loan certificate has been forged. However, considering the circumstances acknowledged according to the record, namely, C was the wife of B, that is, C, and B, divorced on or around January 2018, C and C appear to have been residing in the same house as B, and C cannot avoid the possibility of having made a favorable statement to B to reduce its responsibility, it is difficult to believe C’s statement.

Even according to the defendant's statement, the defendant is from C around October 2016.