However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From March 15, 2016, the Defendant had been working as the store store in the F store on the first floor in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, with a view to raising the result of mobile phone sales by stealing the victim's name.

1. On April 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) had the intent to open the “fish” product by stealing the personal information of the victim G who opened the cell phone at the above store; (b) had the employees H of the said store directed the customer H of the said store to conduct an inspection under the new service contract; and (c) stated the customer column in the customer column “name G, name G, legal life monthly, No. 107 U.S. 107 U.S. 1, address, Kim Jong-hae, Kim, and deposit owner G; and (d) stated “G” in the customer column.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one copy of a new service contract in the name of G, a private document on rights and obligations.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, filed a new contract in the name of the victim G with the cell phone opening computer program, and submitted it as if it were a document duly formed to an employee in the name of the department opening the SK Telecom who knew of the forgery.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on mobile phone contracts;

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime (the point of Article 231 of the Private Document), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The basic area (six months to two years) of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines shall be the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment], the basic area (such as fabrication, alteration, etc. of private documents) of the type of private document forgery, alteration, etc.;

2. The fact that the defendant's decision of sentencing reflects his mistake, and that a person in the name of the above investigation document does not want to punish the defendant;