logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.04.28 2016고정474
사문서위조등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 14, 2015, at the house located in Jeju-si C, 202, the Defendant, and women-friendly Gu D located in the Defendant, and the Defendant in currency with the employees E who operated the store related to the KT TT telecommunications equipment, the Defendant did not have been permitted by F to use the name related to the installation of TV and the Internet, and rather, F, despite the refusal of the Defendant’s above request until that time, “the Internet and TV set forth in subparagraph C, 202 are installed in F’s name, so it is permitted by F to use the Internet and TV set up in F’s name,” and the Defendant did not know of the fact in the customer name column in the “application form of this E-mail”, and sent the said document to the applicant column to exercise it by allowing him to sign and seal it in the name of F, and by allowing him to use it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Preparation and reporting of a record of telephone recording, a record of recording, and a voice file CD;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1.F Internet or TV subscription;

1. A certificate verifying the accession to the KT Internet and a certificate verifying the accession to the KTB;

1. Each investigation report (to provide witness D with telephone conversations and telephone conversations with the suspect);

1. Grounds for public prosecution with respect to the Internet and hybrids part thereof;

1. Part of the E-record recording report [the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, in particular, the recording record in which the Defendant recorded the contents stated before F and the voice file CD (Evidence Nos. 72, 73)] stated that the Defendant promised F to pay in full the LG, KT and Internet display TV fees in the F name with the knowledge that F is recording.”

The F is clearly stated in this Court that “no person has allowed TV access to the Internet” and the F’s statement made at an investigative agency is also part of the opening of the cell phone.

arrow