Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a legal couple with C, and is a father with D.

1. On March 28, 2012, the Defendant forged a private document: (a) indicated “C”, “G”, and “G” and “G H apartment 6-50p” in the name column of the new service contract at the 1st mobile phone sales store in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si; and (b) written “C” in the column of the address column and signed next to the name of the customer who applied for membership.

Accordingly, the Defendant, for the purpose of uttering, forged a “new service contract” under the name of C, which is a private document on rights and obligations, and forged a total of four copies of a new contract under the name of C, including three copies of a new contract and one copy of a new contract under the name of D, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), exercised each of the forged documents as described in the attached list of crimes by delivering the forged new contract to I, the owner of the aforementioned “F” mobile phone sales store, who is aware of the forgery, as if the contract was duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A new service contract, a summary of a claim;

A statement of accounts, etc. (the details of claims by account)

1. New contract (D name K) (No reasonable ground exists for misunderstanding that the defendant's act was committed in the instant case by misunderstanding that his act was not committed upon the solicitation of a Handphone agency, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of expectation for the defendant's act. Thus, the defendant's assertion about the mistake of law and the absence of possibility of expectation cannot be accepted). Thus, the application of the law is rejected.

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of uttering of falsified Investigation Documents);