The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the fact that the defendant and the victim remitted money under the name of interest to the defendant alone cannot be deemed to have known that the defendant provided a vehicle as security and borrowed money in the name of interest. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. However, the court below acquitted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. On August 2010, the Defendant was delegated with H to borrow KRW 10 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, as collateral, from Hamman Co., Ltd., G’s operator, who was entrusted with L to borrow Ha-2 vehicles owned by Ha as collateral, and the J agreed with H to provide the above vehicle as collateral for the obligation of borrowing KRW 20,000,000,00,00,000,000,000,000,00

(1) On August 25, 2010, the Defendant of the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the above-mentioned document stated as “The amount of money borrowed: KRW 30 million on a daily basis, and the borrower: He as collateral: I confirms that the borrower borrowed the above amount to the creditor J and paid in cash not later than February 3, 201. The borrower will provide the following security as of the date of borrowing and, for the above debt guarantee, if the repayment exceeds the due date, the obligee will not raise any objection in entirety. [security] The owner of FH2 vehicle (K): I, the date of borrowing, August 25, 2010, the debtor, the offerer, and the offerer I; and, H and I’s name and affixed his seal to the loan amount in excess of KRW 30 million on the loan amount, KRW 1,000,000,000 and deliver it to the J at the same time and at the same place.

The Defendant shall exercise the foregoing rights.