beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is the representative director of Kimpo-si B(State)C located in Kimpo-si, and was using the bill discount from the victim F several times through E, the operator of (State)D from the second half of 2012.
Since September 2013, the Defendant committed the following crimes with a view to forging G’s endorsement, which is the primary director of the (State)C, and the Defendant’s mother, the former representative director of the (State)C, by forging G’s endorsement, thereby acquiring money from the victim under the name of the bill discount.
1. Around December 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) indicated the issuer C Co., Ltd; and (b) stated the bill number “L” in the indictment in light of the 31st page of the H Evidence No. 2 of the H Evidence Record No. 31 in order to exercise the right of defense of the Defendant; and (c) did not appear to substantially obstruct the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense even if the correction was made without any amendment to the indictment; and (d) indicated the back of the face of the promissory note, the amount of which is “28.6 million won,” on the back of the endorsement column of the face of the promissory note, “resident registration number I”, “ Address J apartment 525-503”, and “name G”, and affixed a seal in the name of G kept subsequent thereto.
As a result, the Defendant forged the endorsement of G name, which is written in relation to the rights and obligations of securities, from that time to February 20, 2014, and forged the endorsement of G name, which is written in relation to the rights and obligations of securities, from that time, from that time to February 20, 2014.
2. On December 9, 2013, the Defendant’s exercise of forged securities appears to be a clerical error in the indictment in light of Article 2 and Article 31 of the H Evidence No. 31 of the H Evidence No. 1 of the Promissory Notes that forged endorsement, as described in paragraph (1), at the office of the State (State) around December 9, 2013, requesting E to affix a bill discount, and the Defendant appears to have been aware of the forgery, and the “L” as described in the indictment appears to be a clerical error in H, and even if it was corrected without any modification