beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;
A. On December 24, 2013, the Defendant, without authority, signed the “D” in the “C Office located in Seogu-gu, Daegu-gu, and without authority for the purpose of exercising, submitted a forged contract to the person in charge of C in charge of business in his name, as seen above, as if the forged contract was duly formed, on the date of termination of the contract,” “three million won”, “on December 24, 2018,” “36.5 percent per annum, 0.1 percent per annum,” and “D” in the “interest rate column,” and signed the “D” with the signature as if D had been signed. In other words, at the seat, the Defendant forged one copy of the money loan agreement under the name of D as to rights and obligations, and submitted it to the person in charge of C in charge of business in his name, who is unaware of the fact that the forged contract was duly formed.
B. On January 2, 2014, the Defendant, without authority, submitted a forged contract to the person in charge of the affairs of a social loan company, i.e., an off-to-face loan transaction agreement, signed on the expiration date column, stating “E” in the resident registration number column, “D” in the customer name column, and used it as if D signed and signed, without authority, for the purpose of exercising the right at the office of a social loan company, the Defendant: “three million won” in the loan limit column of the loan agreement; “three million won” in the first amount used; and “three million won” in the contract date column; and “E” in the resident registration number column; and “D” in the customer name column; and used it.
2. Fraud;
A. On December 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim D that “it would take account of the past insurance that the victim would have subscribed to, and take account of, the fact from, the victim’s mobile phone arrears; (b) instead, rather than restoring the insurance under the victim’s name even if receiving money from the victim D; and (c) by deceiving the victim D that “it would take account of the past insurance that the victim would have subscribed to, 80,000 won.”