Each request for compensation order shall be dismissed by the applicant.

The Defendant is a person who operated the “L” or “M”, which is a mobile phone sales store in K at Mapo-si.

[2018 Highest 355]

1. Around November 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would have lent his/her identification card to the victim E by means of the Defendant’s pro-Japanese Ro-dong through the Defendant’s friendly job offersJ. The issue of future fees, etc. was nonexistent.”

However, the fact that the defendant, not the core chip but the cell phone opened in the victim's name and received a fee based on the actual results, was thought to acquire the sales proceeds by selling it in a middle and high speed, and there was no intention or ability to pay the mobile phone price or the use fee of the victim.

Around December 24, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, and using a personal identification card from the victim J, obtained one (P) of the O mobile phone sales stores in the name of the victim from the “LL” mobile phone sales store operated by the Defendant. The Defendant did not pay an amount equivalent to KRW 1,09,830, and acquired the pecuniary benefits of KRW 51 and KRW 35,827,392 in the name of the victim from November 18, 2015 to June 5, 2017.

2. Around December 24, 2016, the Defendant forged a private document and the uttering of a falsified document: (a) indicated “E” in the subscriber name column, “P” in Qu, and “E” in the subscriber name column, “P” in the entry number column, and “E” in the applicant/subscriber column; and (b) written the signature of “E” in the name subsequent to the name of the Defendant’s mobile phone sales store operated by the Defendant at Y on a wooden-si basis.

Accordingly, the defendant, for the purpose of uttering, forges a letter of application for membership in the name of E, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, and around that time, he is not aware of the forgery.