A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, in collusion with the employees of a mutually unfair loan company, was to obtain a loan from the bank by forging the details of transactions of the Defendant’s agricultural bank passbook and making a false certificate of employment.

1. On November 12, 2010, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) at a lending company office located in Suwon-si, the Defendant entered the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (Account Number: C) passbook in which the details of transactions are not entered by re-issuance to the employees of the lending company; and (b) the said employees arbitrarily stated the details of transactions, such as “D kin 1,450,000,” in the said part of the details of transactions in the passbook.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with the employees of the lending company in the name of the defendant, forged one head of the Tong in the name of the Nonghyup for the purpose of exercising rights and duties.

2. Around November 15, 2010, the Defendant presented that the employees in charge of lending the above bank, who knew of the forgery at the private equity branch of the Future Savings Bank Co., Ltd. located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sadong-dong 147-53, as if the said employees were the documents duly formed.

After all, the Defendant, in collusion with the employees of the lending company, exercised the above-mentioned passbook.

3. The criminal defendant is at the same time and place as in the preceding paragraph, and at the same time and place, an employee in charge of loans at future savings bank offices of the victim corporation is at present D.

If 8 million won is loaned, it shall be 12.26% interest per annum and shall be repaid in installments until November 15, 2015.

The head of the Tong, etc., which was forged as if he received monthly salary in D, was presented.

However, in fact, the head of the agricultural bank, which the defendant submitted, was forged and the defendant was absent from office, and there was no intention or ability to repay even if he received a loan from the victim company due to no particular property.

After all, the defendant is a member of a lending company.