However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant was a person who operated a mobile phone sales store with the trade name of C in Daegu Dong-gu B.

"2017 Highest 430 "

1. On November 3, 2015, the Defendant forged a private document: (a) stated the name and resident registration number in the customer information column for the application form for joining the KT Han mobile phone at the above sales store; and (b) written the document as “D” in the applicant column, respectively.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising the right, the Defendant forged the application form for mobile phone purchase in the name of D, a private document related to the exercise of the right.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, sent the application for joining the cell phone in the name of the person in charge of KT Ha, who was aware of the forgery, as above, as if the application was duly prepared, to an employee in the name of the person in charge of KT Ha, and exercised the same.

"2017 Highest 4331"

1. For the purpose of uttering, on November 7, 2015, the Defendant forged one application form in the name of the complainant by stating in the column the name of the subscriber “E (52 years, 00)” in the name of “E” in the name of “E” (E), the date of birth, F in the column of E, the applicant column, E, and other necessary matters in the name of the complainant.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and time as set forth in the preceding paragraph, exercised the instant investigation document by sending a written request to both relevant communications agencies, wherein one of the forged application form for Mambio Moble was genuinely prepared.

3. The Defendant, at the same time and time as the above paragraph (a) of the same Article, conspired with one application form in the name of the complainant necessary for opening the cell phone and deceptioned the relevant radio operator by exercising the same as the above paragraph (b).

The Defendant, who believed this, did not pay KRW 1,063,920 on a portable telephone, installment, and telephone charge, even though he had opened H’s telephone from the KT Telecommunication Operator.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highest 430 "

1. The defendant's statement in court;