beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.07 2016고단172

사문서변조등

Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Presumption of Facts] The defendant is a person who operates a company as the representative director of C, which manufactures steel plates for the protection of gas pipelines in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, and supplies them to the Korea Gas Corporation.

In order to supply a large quantity of gas to large enterprises such as Hanjin Heavy Industries, or large-scale gas suppliers such as Busan Urban Gas, the Korea Gas Corporation provides that high-pressure gas pipelines should be installed in high-pressure gas pipelines with a thickness of at least 6 meters in high-pressure gas pipelines in order to prevent gas leakage and explosion.

When the Defendant, while operating a stock company, intended to supply the protective steel plate for gas pipelines to the Korea Gas Corporation, the Defendant would not make profits from the manufacture cost of the iron plate more than 6 meters, such as the provision of the thickness of the protective steel plate. As the Defendant anticipated that the manufacture cost of the iron plate would not exceed 6 meters, the Defendant would be able to change the number stated in the thickness of the test certificate issued by S to the Korea Gas Corporation by 6 meters and submit it to the Korea Gas Corporation.

[Criminal facts]

1. Around March 2011, the Defendant: (a) instructed D et al. officials in charge of D et al. to take the control of the inspection certificate of the iron plates issued by S as “6.0”; and (b) accordingly, the employees in charge entered the “5.5” as “6.0” in the “Sise/water control certificate” column of the inspection certificate prepared by S E (Certificate No. 110318-PHNE-04-01).

In addition, during the period from February 2012 to February 2, 2012, the Defendant had no authority to arbitrarily change the measurement of the inspection certificate through the same method 12 times in total, such as the list in the annexed crime list 1, and to exercise the inspection certificate, which is a private document in the name of S.