Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

A. From October 31, 2012 to November 27, 2012, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) from the point of the office in the Dong-dong, Young-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Young-dong; (b) from the mobile phone (D, E, F) in the victim C’s mobile phone (333) in the name column of customer information; (c) in the name column of customer information for application for new subscription, the Defendant drafted three copies of each document by stating “C”, “G”, “H in the resident registration number column,” “I” in the contact column, “C” in the contact address column, “C” and “C” following that.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the defendant set up three parts of a new T service contract in the name of the victim of a private document related to rights and obligations respectively.

B. At the same time and place as in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant: (a) submitted three parts of a new contract for the mobile phone telecommunication service, which was forged, to a person in charge of SK Telecom, who knows of the forgery, with the intent to open three cell phoness in the victim’s name; and (b) subsequently, submitted it to the person in charge

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Complaint;

1. T service applications:

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each investigation report;

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of each private document Article 231 of the same Act), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (the point of uttering of each private document);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act: Formal concurrence (Joint Crimes of Fraud in each of the above investigation documents);

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the order of provisional payment is that the Defendant’s crime of each of the crimes in this case is light of the nature of the crime

Although it is not possible to do so, the criminal law, such as the fact that the victim is not subject to the punishment of the defendant, the fact that the victim is against the punishment of the defendant, the fact that there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, and the age, sex, motive, means and result of the crime, etc. of this case.