1. Purchasing a mobile phone in the B name of the mobile phone;

A. On November 2017, the Defendant, who forged a private document or displayed a private document, was asked to purchase one mobile phone in the name of the Defendant’s mother from B to purchase one mobile phone in the name of the Defendant’s mother, and was asked to purchase one mobile phone in the name of the Defendant’s mother, and the Defendant used that to purchase a mobile phone in the name of B.

On November 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) stated “B” in the subscriber name column, “G” in the date of birth, and “H” in the account number column of the payment bank; (b) signed “I” on the applicant column; (c) written consent to the use of personal information in the name of B; (d) written application for the contract for radio service contract; and (e) written application for the mobile phone damage compensation in the name of B, which is a private document on rights and duties, for the purpose of exercising as indicated in No. 1 of the attached Table No. 1 of the day of crime; and (e) forged five copies, such as the application form for the mobile phone damage compensation in the name of B, which is a private document on the rights and duties of B; and (e) forged the forged fact to D, as if the document was duly formed, such as the written application for the forged fact.

B. The fraud accused presented the forged application form for mobile phone subscription and the resident registration certificate B held by the Defendant to the victim D at the above date and at the above place, and carried out as if he had a legitimate right to purchase a mobile phone under B’s name with the delegation from B.

However, in fact, the defendant was only entrusted with only one cell phone purchase from B, so he did not have the right to purchase the cell phone to be used by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it.