In the judgment of the court of first instance, each part of the forgery of private documents, the exercise of falsified documents, and the fraud of leased cars shall be reversed.

1. The judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted all of the above parts of the judgment of the court of the judgment on February 2, 198 is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the summary of the grounds for appeal (i.e., fraud of borrowed money, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money amount of KRW 80 million to the defendant at the time, and the defendant's criminal intent to obtain by deception, and (ii) as to the forgery of private documents, the use of falsified documents, and the part of the leased vehicle fraud, the defendant forged the joint and several surety for the borrowed money of this case against the victim's will, thereby forging the column of the joint and several surety for the borrowed money of this case (hereinafter "the vehicle of this case"), despite the fact that the defendant committed the crime of fraud by forging the victim's "VS380 seal page" (hereinafter "the vehicle of this case").

A. As to this part of the facts charged in this case, the first instance court sentenced the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to support the defendant's deception with the intent of deception, and in light of the records, the first instance court's measure is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality such as misconception of facts affecting the judgment, and thus, the prosecutor's above assertion disputing this point cannot be accepted.

B. Various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the remainder of the facts charged (i.e., fabrication of private documents, uttering of a falsified document, lease fraud part), i.e., that E appears as a witness at the first instance court and purchased a vehicle in the name of the victim company, and that he/she was unaware of having the witness’s seal impression and his/her seal impression to use the witness’s seal impression in guaranteeing the defendant’s joint and several liability for payment and penalty.