The defendant does not pay the above fine.

"2015 Highest 2250"

1. On May 2015, the Defendant: (a) was working as a franchise business employee in Daegu Jung-gu, and was commissioned by the Hho-si E to receive a cell phone identity card; (b) used a mobile phone image sent through Kakakao Stockholm, using a mobile phone image from E to receive a mobile phone opening fee in the name of E without the consent of E; and (c) used the same as a mobile phone sent through E.

A. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant stated “E, F, Daegu Seo-gu,” and “A customer who receives the name” in the column for “information subject to change of the name” of the mobile phone name form in the foregoing D office around May 20, 2015, and submitted E’s signature to the employee in charge of opening the mobile phone name of D, who is unaware of the fact.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one copy of the mobile phone name change contract in the name of E, which is a private document on rights and duties, and submitted it as if it were duly formed.

B. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant stated “E, F, Daegu-gu G” and “E” column in the “user information” column of the mobile phone new contract form at the above D office, respectively, and submitted E’s signature to the employee in charge of opening the mobile phone of D mobile phone without knowledge of the fact.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one copy of the new contract of mobile telephone in the name of E, which is a private document concerning rights and duties, and submitted it as if they were genuine.

(c)

On May 23, 2015, the Defendant stated “E”, “E,” “F, Seogu G,” and “applicant” in the “consumer’s column of “consumer information” column in the site of application for mobile phone opening at the above D office, and submitted the signature of “E” to the employee in charge of mobile phone opening operations without knowing the name.

The defendant is entitled to exercise.