사문서위조등
The sentence against the accused shall be five million won or more.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine.
Punishment of the crime
1. Forging a private document;
A. On October 29, 2009, the Defendant drafted six copies of the application form for the purchase of mobile phones in the name of E by stating “E,” “F,” “F,” “E,” “E,” “E,” “E,” “E,” and “E,” and “E” on the part of the passenger column of the Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, Daejeon, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, and “E” on the side of the application form for the purchase of mobile phones located in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, and “E,” without having received delegation from E, even though he was not delegated by E.
Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the defendant applied for the membership of the mobile phone in the name of E, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, for the purpose of uttering.
B. On November 4, 2009, the Defendant forged an application form for mobile phone joining in the name of E, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations, at the place indicated in the paragraph (a) around November 4, 2009 and in the same manner as described in the paragraph (a).
(c)
On November 5, 2009, the Defendant forged an application form for mobile phone joining in the name of E, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations, at the place of entry in the paragraph (a) around November 5, 2009 and in the same manner as the entry in the paragraph (a).
2. The Defendant, at each time, at each place specified in paragraph (1), issued each of the forged mobile phone admission applications to H, the representative of the aforementioned “D”, as described in the preceding paragraph, as if they were duly formed, and exercised the same.
3. Fraud means that the victim H, the main owner of a mobile phone agency, “a child within the E and was delegated with joining the mobile phone from E” and the Defendant made a false statement as if he/she had a legitimate right to receive eight mobile phones opened in the name of E.
However, the defendant did not have received delegation from E, and even if he opened a mobile phone in the name of E, he/she will or ability to pay the fee normally.