Text
As to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant, a fine of KRW 1.5 million shall be imposed on the crime No. 2 in the judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On November 29, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for six months at the Daejeon District Court for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2012.
1. On May 23, 2012, the fraud Defendant stated that “Aber was used for cerebrovascular surgery and 20 million won.” If the Defendant borrowed KRW 400,000,00,000 to KRW 400,000,000,000, it was false that the Defendant sent money directly to the principal director and the employee within this State.”
However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, the defendant did not have any idea to use it in operating expenses and did not have any intention or ability to pay the money to the victim.
The Defendant received 400,000 won from the victim to the D Association account (E) in the name of C on the same day, and received 7,961,30 won in total from the victim over 11 times from June 15, 2012, as shown in the attached crime list, from June 15, 2012.
2. Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;
A. A. Around July 4, 2013, the Defendant entered the F Company water purifier subscription form in the “J”, the name column, “I”, “M in the mobile phone column,” and “N” account number in the settlement account column with the applicant’s resident registration number column of the F Company Water purifier subscription form using a verification-type pen for the purpose of exercising the F Company Water purifier G in Seocho-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu without I’s consent. On the following, the Defendant used the F Company’s personal document form, “I”, “I”, “M” in the mobile phone column, and “N” in the bank name column, “I”’s signature in the customer name column, and used the same as if the F Company’s employeeO was genuinely signed the forged subscription form.
B. On August 8, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for the use of the P Company’s Internet and TV services, as well as the P Company’s Internet and TV.