A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 15, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment due to the charge of forging a private document, etc. in the support of the Sugwon, and the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence at Anyang Prison on July 21, 2017.

1. The Defendant discovered that he had a photograph taken by C on the Internet car page of his driver’s license, received it, and then fix the Defendant’s face over the C face, and epiced the above driver’s license, and then epiced the Defendant’s photograph with the Defendant’s face, and used this photograph to sound the vehicle as if the Defendant was C.

On October 20, 2017, at around 15:00, the Defendant: (a) indicated the Defendant’s photographed with the Defendant’s face on the driver’s license photograph attached to the Defendant’s cell phone; (b) indicated the Defendant’s photographed with the Defendant’s cell phone; (c) written “C” in the lessee column of the DK5 passenger car lease agreement; and (d) signed on the name following the Defendant’s name.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged a copy of the vehicle lease contract in the name of C, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, at the place specified in 1. Paragraph (1) and at the place, delivered the forged vehicle lease contract to the employees of opport (ju) who knew of the forgery as above, as if it were the document duly formed.

3. On October 31, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the exercise of the right, at the Samsung Electronic Service Center operated by the victim Samsung Electronic Services (ju) that was located on the part of the unit line of Ansan-si, 1070-4, a member of Ansan-si, entrusted the repair of the victim’s cellular phone at the gallon juth of the Defendant’s ownership, and did not pay 50,000 won of the repair cost to compensate for the above repair expense claim, and the damaged person was in custody of the cell phone while the employee in charge interfered with the victim’s exercise of the right without the victim’s consent.

(i) the evidence;