logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2017.03.22 2017고단121
사문서위조등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of ten months.

However, as to Defendant B, this shall not apply.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s joint criminal acts operate “G” as a mobile phone sales business entity in Seo-gu, Daegu-si, and Defendant B operated “I” as a mobile phone sales business entity in Seo-gu, Daegu-si, and with the authorization granted from “J”, “K”, “L”, and “M” to open a core chip (USIP).

On May 2015, the Defendants planned that Defendant B arbitrarily opened a core chip under the name of a foreigner and provided it to Defendant A, and sold it to many unspecified persons who want to use the term “spophone” as recruited by Defendant A, and that each of the following profits have been divided.

A. According to the aforementioned plan, Defendant B entered “O”, “P”, “O”, and “O” in the name column of the prepaid mobile phone contract using a copy of a foreigner’s foreigner registration certificate held at the above N Center around September 2, 2015, and forged a prepaid telephone contract signed by O on the name of another person and then sent it to an employee under the name of the J head office as if the aforementioned forged prepaid telephone contract was duly formed, and used by facsimile as if the aforementioned forgery was a document was duly formed. From September 2, 2015 to November 17, 2015, Defendant B forged the prepaid mobile contract under the name of another person, which is a private document on the rights and obligations of another person; and Defendant B forged the prepaid mobile contract with a large number of unspecified persons, as shown in the attached Table 3, and forged the prepaid mobile contract with a large number of unspecified persons and exercised the prepaid mobile contract as described below.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to act on the rights and obligations over 182 occasions.

arrow