A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a salt farm (permission number: D, total area of 31,005 square meters) in Jeonnam-gun, Shinan-gun, and the victim E is a person employed as an employee of the above salt farm from July 18, 2006, according to the national or Jeju Hospital Disability Examination, who is a person of Grade 3 of intellectual disability, intelligence index 66, social index 63, and real life age 10 months.

1. A quasi-Fraud Defendant: (a) around July 18, 2006, using the mental disorder of the victim at the above salt farm, caused the victim to perform work at the salt farm; and (b) had the victim do not pay wages to the victim; and (c) employed the victim as an employee.

From July 18, 2006 to January 31, 2014, the Defendant did not pay wages equivalent to the same amount that the Defendant provided by the victim with labor equivalent to KRW 84,001,10,00 in total as indicated in the annexed crime sight table.

As a result, the defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to 84,001,100 won by using the mental disorder of the victim.

2. Although the Defendant did not obtain consent from the above E on the opening of a mobile phone, he/she had the intent to open a mobile phone in the victim’s name.

On October 7, 2011, the Defendant: (a) stated “E” in the name column, “H” in the resident registration number column, and “E” in the bank column, and signed “E” in the name following the entry of the pen in the form of a new contract for the service, G located in F, upon making use of the pen in the form of a new contract for the service; (b) stated “E in the Account Book column,” “E in the Account Book column,” and signed “E” in the name.

As above, the Defendant continued to submit a forged new service contract as if it were a document duly formed to the above agency employee under the name of the defendant who was aware of the forgery.

For the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one copy of a new service contract in the name of E, which is a private document on rights and obligations, and exercised it.

Summary of Evidence

1..