beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Around March 5, 2012, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) entered the name-based person in the column for “real estate lease contract” in the column for the location of the “real estate lease contract” in order to have him/her arbitrarily affix his/her seal to the name and seal of his/her female at a coffee shop located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) entered the name-based person in the column for the “real estate lease contract” in the deposit column; and (c) entered the term column in the “YYYYY 190,000 (190,000)”; and (d) entered the name and seal of each of the C in the name and seal of each of the B, “C”; and (d) enter the name and seal of each of the C in the column for the term column; and (e) enter the column for the indication of the real estate deposit and the amount of the deposit in the form for lease; and (e) enter the name and seal of each of the C in the name and seal of each of each of the C.
2. On March 6, 2012, at the credit service office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’E, the Defendant issued a false statement to the victim F as follows: “The Plaintiff, who is unaware of the forged circumstance, was unaware of the said real estate lease contract, the confirmation of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and the written consent for the payment of the deposit, paid to the lessor KRW 190,000,000,000 of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis to the lessor and resides in the lessor, who currently resides in the city B 104, 1201.”
However, in fact, from October 2009 to October 201, 201, the Defendant resided in the above apartment complex in the 40 million won of deposit and 14.5 million won of monthly rent, but did not hold a claim for the return of deposit KRW 190 million against the lessor C.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was the 15 million won around March 6, 2012 under the pretext of borrowing from the victim, and the 40 million won around July of the same month is the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant.