The judgment below

Among them, the part against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is Gangseo branch court of the Chuncheon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the summary of each of the facts charged against the Defendant is as follows: (a) around September 17, 2009, the Defendant requested the forgery of the Promissory Notes; (b) the Defendant requested the forgery of the Promissory Notes; and (c) the name defective is as follows: (a) on the face value column of the face value of the Promissory Notes, the name defective is as follows: (a) on October 9, 2009; (b) on the date of payment column, “Seoul-Namsan City”; and (c) on the issuer column, “AB Representative AC”, the seal of AC is affixed to the face value column of the Promissory Notes; and (d) on the date of payment column, the Defendant conspireded the Promissory Notes under the name of each of the Defendants and the holders with the intent of exercising the Promissory Notes under the name of each of the following BC under the name of each of the following BC: (a) on the face value column of the Promissory Notes; and (b) on the date of payment column, “I 18.”.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the lower court: (a) based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court; (b) the Defendant agreed to deliver a promissory note to W on the premise that the repayment of the obligation would be postponed by W; and (c) reported a daily advertisement along with BD to BD; and (d) ordered a promissory note with the face value of KRW 140 million,000,000 in total, which is the amount the Defendant needed at the time when the Defendant was placed on a telephone to the bearer; and (b) paid KRW 3 million in return for the delivery of such promissory note; and (c) BD received a promissory note with an order issued by a person whose name was defective; and the Defendant