The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the victim C, D, and mother and child relationship.

On February 8, 2011, the Defendant stated the name “A” in the “C” column, “G” and “resident registration number” column, “the date of application,” and “applicant” column and submitted the name “A” to the employees in charge of the said branch office, by advertising that the Defendant was aware of the personal information of the victim C in Pyeongtaek-si, and making it possible for the Defendant to open the victim’s mobile phone.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged and uses one copy of a new application for joining the mobile phone in the name of the victim C, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, from March 22, 2012 to March 22, 2012.

2. Determination

A. Whether the crime of forging a document constitutes a crime of forging a document was copied in the name of another person in the preparation of that document

A decision is made in accordance with the form of determining whether a document was not made, and the truth of the document does not exist when there is no complaint, except as otherwise provided for in a special penal provision. Thus, in cases where a representative or an agent of another person has the authority to prepare a document by using the representative's name or representative's name or by directly using his/her name, even if the document is prepared with the intention of simply promoting his/her own or a third party's interest by abusing his/her position, it does not constitute a crime of forging a document (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do332, Apr. 12, 1983, etc.).

B. The following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, the Defendant, as indicated in the annexed Table 1, 2, 3, and 6.