While the Defendant was operating a mobile phone agency in the name of "C" in the north-gu B at Port, the Defendant was willing to renew the agency contract by forging the consent of the joint and several sureties in the name of "E" and submitting it is necessary for the guarantor to renew the agency contract.

1. On December 2013, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) printed out the letter of joint and several sureties’s consent at the Police Office C’s office in the middle of the month 2013; and (b) written the name “E in the name column,” and “G in the resident number column,” on the part of the joint and several sureties’s address column using a color pen; and (c) kept in custody next to the E name.

E-book was stamped.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the defendant has forged one copy of the letter of joint and several sureties in the name of E, a private document on rights and obligations.

2. On December 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) exercised the instant investigation document as if he/she completed the written consent of joint and several sureties that he/she had forged to D employees who may know of forgery at the point of port D ports located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu; and (b) exercised the same as if he/she had duly concluded the said written consent of the joint

3. Fraud;

A. On December 16, 2013, when the Defendant renewed an agency contract at the point of port D ports, the Defendant, who committed the crime against the Victim D, submitted a forged E’s joint and several surety consent to the staff in charge of the Victim D Co., Ltd. by submitting it as above to the staff in charge of the victim Co., Ltd., for the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 201 of the same year, deceiving the Defendant as joint and several surety with respect to the obligation to supply the device to the

As above, the Defendant entered into an agency contract with the intent of deceiving employees in charge of the victim to supply goods to the Defendant within the scope of collateral, and received a mobile phone terminal from the victim from January 2014 to May 2014 to the market price equivalent to KRW 254,697,30 in total from the victim to May 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. The Defendant committed a crime against the victim I. The Defendant is on December 2013.