Defendant

A fails to pay the above fine.

Defendant

B and Defendant A are related persons, and Defendant A has worked in “D”, which is a mobile phone agent.

Defendants had a driver’s license in the form of a flag to open C mobile phone using the name of the Defendants.

1. On November 6, 2017, the Defendants: (a) conspired to forgeing private document; (b) obtained the above E’s driver’s license upon the request of the Party E to request for change of mobile phone devices from G; and (c) delivered the said E’s license to Defendant A; (d) Defendant A used it to open the aforementioned E’s mobile phone opening in the name of the customer; (c) entered “E”, “H”, “I”, and “E” in the subscriber’s name; and (d) forged the C’s application form in the name of “E”, “H”, “E” without authority for the purpose of signing and exercising rights and duties on the part of the subscriber’s name.

2. The Defendants engaged in the uttering of the above investigation document in collusion, and at the time and place mentioned in the above paragraph (1), delivered one copy of the C Admission Application in the name of E, as if it were a document duly formed, to C employees who are not aware of the forgery.

3. The Defendants: (a) conspired to submit an application for the C subscription in the name of Defendant A forged at the date, time, and place specified in the above paragraph (1) by deceiving the said C employee of the victim, as if he/she were given a legitimate authority with respect to the opening of a mobile phone from Defendant E; and (b) by deceiving the said C employee of the victim, he/she received one gallon-galloned 8 mobile phone with an I number of 1,094,50

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement to E and J;

1. Investigation report (Details of claims for mobile phone bills) and details of claims by account;

1. Investigation report ( telephone conversations with K for reference);

1. Application for accession, first;