The crime list (1) Nos. 6, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 54 in the judgment of the defendant, and the crime list (2) in the judgment of the court.

Punishment of the crime

On December 17, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months as a crime of fraud in the Western Branch of the Daegu District Court on December 17, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 25, 2013.

"2016 Highest 430"

1. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant forged 55 copies of a new contract for mobile telephone services in the name of the applicant under the name of the applicant for subscription and the resident registration number printed on the paper for a new contract for mobile telephone services in which the name and resident registration number are printed, and forged 55 copies of a new contract for mobile telephone services in the name of E, a private document on the rights and obligations of the applicant for subscription, for the purpose of exercising the signature of E on the name following that name, and forged 1 copy of a new contract for mobile telephone services in the name of E, a private document on the rights and obligations, from June 9, 2013 to November 14, 2014, in the same way five times in total, as shown in the list of crimes (1) in the attached Table for crimes.

2. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant exercised 55 copies of the mobile phone service subscription agreement from June 9, 2013 to November 14, 2014 in the same way, including the submission of a new contract for mobile telephone service in the name of SK Telecom Co., Ltd., which is aware of the forgery, as if it were a document duly formed with the conclusion of a new contract for mobile telephone service in the name of E, which was forged, as seen above, as well as from June 9, 2013 to November 14, 2014.

3. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant: (a) submitted a copy of a new contract for mobile telephone service in the name of counterfeit E and a copy of the vehicle driving license of E to the victim SK Telecom Co., Ltd.; (b) deceiving the Defendant as if he/she had the right to use the service by opening the mobile phone in his/her name and via the mobile phone in his/her name.

However, the facts were that the defendant prepared a new contract for mobile telephone service by stealing the name of E and submitted it to the victim.

The defendant as above.