logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2013.10.08 2013고정283
사문서위조등
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The Defendant stated in the facts charged of the instant case that he had custody of his pro-friendly C’s resident registration certificate, with the issuance of a credit card under C’s name.

On January 6, 2012, the Defendant forged a private document, using a folder to enter C’s name, resident registration number, etc. on the paper of the application form for membership registration, which is kept at the bar line located at the original city level, and signed “C” on the applicant column.

As a result, the Defendant forged the application form for membership of a card in the name of a private document C, which is a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.

B. The Defendant, at the above date and place, delivered one copy of the application form for membership of a cards to D, who is an employee of a lot card, who is aware of the forgery at the above time and place, as if it were a document duly formed.

2. The Defendant asserted that he would not be issued a credit card as a person with bad credit standing at the time of the end of 201, 201, and that he would pay 50,000 won in cash to the card staff D at the bar bar at the time of the original city level, where he was unable to obtain the credit card, and then, she would make an application for membership of the card with C’s name (hereinafter “instant application”) with C’s consent.

However, the Defendant, at the time, left the place without preparing the entire application of the instant case, and subsequently completed the preparation of the said application via D by informing D of the issuance authority and serial number of C’s driver’s license known to D with the consent of C on January 6, 2012.

Through such a series of procedures, the Defendant only prepared the instant application with C’s consent, and there is no fact that the Defendant forged and uses the said application.

3. Prosecutions who correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.

arrow