beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 영덕지원 2018.05.23 2017고단267

사문서위조

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won, and by imprisonment of Defendant B for six months.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On August 22, 2014, the Daegu District Court rendered a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for a period of eight months for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 30, 2014.

1. Defendant B, on June 1, 2012, borrowed the name of G and operated an I place of business in the order of “A” corporation (hereinafter “H”, “F”, and “E”) and the said place of business after concluding an entrustment contract with the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not pay transport charges received from the customers on their home delivery to the said company.

The G demanded the suspension of the operation of the I place of business of the Company E, and the Defendant B tried to lend the name of the Defendant A, which was known to the general public, to operate the I place of business.

However, Defendant A may not lend his name on the ground that he is a public official, Defendant B would lend his name to Defendant A, “I will lend his father’s name and pay part of the profits from his principal office as a fee.”

“The Defendant A proposed that it was “,” and the Defendant A accepted it.

Defendant

B around January 10, 2013, around the place of business and around January 10, 2013, the paper of the consignment contract was presented to Defendant A. Although Defendant A did not obtain consent from his father J, Defendant A entered the name “J” column in the above site and was stolen and possessed.

J’s seal was affixed to its right side.

On the same day, Defendant B continued to possess the paper of the contract for the transfer of attempted bonds and deposits in this blank. Defendant B, despite the father’s consent, did not obtain the consent from the J, stated “J” in the “A transferee column of the said site,” and stolen and possessed the same.

J’s seal was affixed to its right side.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to exercise their rights and duties, and one of the consignment contracts at the place of business under the name of the J, and the attempted claim.