beta
Text
The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On May 21, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment by the Incheon District Court due to the charge of forging a private document, the charge of conducting a falsified document, and the crime of fraud. On August 13, 2015, the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 13, 2015. On October 30, 2015, the Incheon District Court was sentenced to exemption from punishment due to fraud, fabrication of a private document, and the crime of conducting a falsified document, and the above judgment on November 7, 2015 became final and conclusive.
"2015 Highest 6309"
1. On July 31, 2012, the Defendant forged a private document and the instant investigation document: (a) without authority for the purpose of exercising the Defendant’s operation “C” on the first floor of the building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant entered “LG Plus” column as “94,400 won” in the “written application form” column; (b) stated “LG Plus” column as “C Plus”; and (c) stated “Plus” on the “date of preparation” column as “C1 July 31, 2012”; and (d) stated D’s name and resident registration number in “Buyer” column as “E” and sent his name to an employee belonging to “LG Plus” through an employee in charge of “E”.
The Defendant, without authority, forged an application form for joining a private document pertaining to the rights and obligations in the name of D without authority, and used it from the above day to August 8, 2013, and forged four copies of private documents relating to the rights and obligations in the name of D, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form D, every four times from the above day to August 8, 2013, and exercised it.
2. On July 31, 2012, the Defendant sent the “application form” forged in the name of Log Plus Co., Ltd., Ltd. to the injured party through the employees of “E”, and the Defendant pretended that the said application form was authentic documents.
However, the above application was forged, and the defendant received the mobile phone terminal by the above method and planned to dispose of it to the mid- and smartphone service provider, and thus, the mobile phone fee.