"2016 Highest 111"

1. On November 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) made use of an opportunity to open and open his/her mobile phone through the request of friendly B; and (b) made his/her employees enter “B”, “E”, “E”, “E”, “E” in the main disturbance in the name column, “E”, “B” in the main disturbance, “B”, “B” in the date of birth,” and “B” in the application column; and “B” in the name column; and (c) made the members enter “B” in the entry column; and (d) sign the entry “B”.

Accordingly, between May 22, 2014 and May 17, 2015, the Defendant forged Chapter B, G, H, I, J, K, and L as stated in the attached Table 1 through 5, 8 through 10, 15, 20, 21, 23, 28 through 31, including the charge of forging one application form in the name of private document related to rights and obligations, for the purpose of uttering. The Defendant omitted 21 in the indictment and stated that the number of forged private documents is 15.

However, according to the attached list of crimes in the indictment, this is obvious that it is a clerical error and even if it is corrected without changing the indictment, it does not seem to be a substantial obstacle to the exercise of the defendant's right to defense. Thus, it is recognized as above without changing the indictment

paragraph 2 below the same shall also apply.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as above 1 paragraph (1), submitted the forged application form to a mobile phone sales store employee who was aware of the forgery and exercised it as if it were duly constituted.

In addition, between May 2, 2014 and May 17, 2015, the Defendant is duly formed 16 pages, such as the application for a forged subscription under the name of B, G, H, I, J, K, and L, as set out in the attached Table 1 through 5, 8 through 10, 15, 20, 21, 23, 23, and 28 through 31.