If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Although the Defendant did not permit the opening of the cell phone from B, he acted as if he had been permitted to do so from B, and he did so by obtaining the delivery of the mobile phone opened in the name of B.

1. On October 26, 2015, the Defendant of a private document: (a) called “F”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “G”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “B”, and “B”, and “B”, the name of the bank in the column, “I”, “B”, “B”, and “B”, and the name of the bank in the column, “B”, “B”, “B”, and signed in the column, “B”, “B”, and the name of the bank in the column, “I”, “B”, “B”, and “B”, and the other SK service new contract in the name of the customer “B” shall be viewed as the new package.

For the purpose of exercising as above, the Defendant forged two copies of a new service contract in the name of private document No. B, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. On October 26, 2015, the Defendant used two copies of a forged new service contract to E, the owner of the said agency, who is aware of the forgery, as described in paragraph 1, at the foregoing D agency, as if it were a document duly formed.

3. On October 27, 2015, the Defendant, at the foregoing D agency operated by the victim E, told the victim as if he/she was delegated with the opening of the mobile phone from B, and then, he/she received two mobile phones from the victim, the sum of the market prices opened in B’s name, equivalent to KRW 1,99,800, from the victim.