사기등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, a person operating C agency, was urged to pay the debt amounting to KRW 120 million from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and the guarantee was anticipated to be compulsory execution on the friendly property, and its account was seized. As such, the Defendant had the intent to forge an electronic tax invoice in the name of the place he became aware of in the transaction, and to use the same to pay the amount to his own debt.
1. On December 8, 2013, at the Defendant’s house located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, the Defendant entered “C”, “E” in the name column, “E” in the business address column, “Spocheon-si F” in the business place column, “Dopocheon-si f” in the item column, “retailing beverage” in the item column, “34,880,000 in the tax amount column,” “3,48,000 in the aggregate amount column,” and inserted “3,48,368,000 in the aggregate amount column” in its name and affixed its Korean language on the back to the E’s name.
Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged one electronic tax invoice in the name of E, a private document concerning a certificate of fact.
2. Around December 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) issued a forged electronic tax invoice to H, who is aware of the forgery in the office of the International Office of the Bank of Bankruptcy operating by H in Sung-nam-si, Sungnam-si; and (b) exercised it as if the forged electronic tax invoice was duly formed.
3. The Defendant issued an electronic tax invoice forged on the same date, time, and at the same place as above in the above 2. Paragraph (2), and concluded a false statement to the victim H stating that “I would pay the C two oil prices to be supplied at the intermittent value.”
However, there was no incentive to supply the victim at the time, and there was no intention or ability to supply the two compensation to the victim because it was thought that it was used to pay other debts with money from the victim.
The defendant deceivings the victim and is under his control.