logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.05.15 2018고단1366
유가증권위조등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months and by a fine of 2,00,000 won.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2018 Highest 1366] The Defendant, as he was unable to repay the money to B, prepared a promissory note in the name of the victim C, a de facto marital spouse, without permission, in the name of the victim C, who was not a de facto marital spouse B, and had the intent to receive the loan claim by enforcing

Accordingly, the Defendant demanded B to pay off obligations, while continuing to prepare a promissory note in the name of a debt security clause C, and demanded C's seal impression to bring about C's seal impression for the preparation of a promissory note.

On January 26, 2017, B accepted the request of the defendant, and around January 26, 2017, C's seal impression which was kept in C's rocketing vehicle was brought to the defendant.

1. Around January 26, 2017, the Defendant counterfeited securities, forged securities, and the Defendant’s uttering of forged securities, together with B, made a promissory note in the name of C in the name of the said law firm name-based E-law office in which the notary public, who had been located in Kujin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Seoul, found it to be the E-law office and stated “A” in the face value as “B,” and the Defendant stated “B” on the date of issuance, “B” on January 1, 2017, “C” on the date of payment,” and “C” on the issuer’s column, and then written a promissory note in the name of C with his/her seal imprint affixed thereon, and presented as if the said law firm name-based employee, who was unaware of the forgery, was a genuine promissory note established.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with B, forged a promissory note in the name of C without authority, which is a securities in the name of C and exercised it.

2. The Defendant did not have been authorized or delegated to prepare a notarial deed to the effect that the Defendant did not enter the original of the notarial deed, and the fact at the time and place under Paragraph (1) together with B, as well as the preparation of promissory notes under the name of the said C, as well as the compulsory execution against the obligation of promissory notes.

arrow