beta
Text
1. Defendant A’s imprisonment for three years, Defendant B, andO’s imprisonment for one year, Defendant C, E, G, H, I, K, M, P, P, V, X, Y.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
C was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Incheon District Court on February 19, 2014, and the judgment was finalized on June 27, 2014. Defendant G was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a term of fraud in the Incheon District Court’s Vice Branch on September 25, 2013, and the judgment was finalized on October 3, 2013. Defendant F was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a term of suspension of execution at the Seoul East District Court on September 11, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 19, 2013.
"2014 Highest 3221"
1. On July 6, 2011, Defendant A entered into a contract for the subcontract of a complex civil construction work among the construction works of a new house for Hongsung-gun Hong-gun Hongdong, Hongsung-si, 201, at the office of Defendant A’s operation (N), located in the office of Hancheon-si AM building 201, and between AO and AP, the actual operator of AO.
At this time, Defendant A’s act of guaranteeing the payment of 6.6. b. Initial price in the construction subcontract form using a computer: The guarantee of the construction cost for the land owner at the end of the construction site; and the land owner at the end of the contract; made the following marks; made the address column “S”, “AS” and “AT” in the resident number column, respectively; and made the same month.
9. AT’s seal affixed to the name next to that of the above AT, which was inscribed in advance.
Accordingly, the defendant A forged one copy of the subcontract agreement of construction work, which is a private document on the rights and obligations of AT for the purpose of exercising.
2. On July 9, 2011, Defendant A, at the same place as set forth in paragraph (1), issued a forged construction subcontract agreement to AP, who is aware of the forgery, as if it were a document duly formed.
3. The fact that Defendant A presented a forged construction work subcontract agreement at the same date, time, and place as referred to in paragraph (2) is the landism, despite that there was no guarantee of land AT for the construction cost.