beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
From June 1, 2011 to December 201, 2011, the Defendant is a person who works as the Vice Minister of advertiser Management in D Co., Ltd. located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim E is the same company fees, and the victim F is the representative director of the said company.
1. Around May 201, the Defendant forged private documents, using a black pen on the paper of the lease contract at the location of the Defendant located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating “175 million won,” “H” in the lessor column, and “A” in the lessee column, and signed by the Defendant following H’s name.
Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one set of the lease contract in the name of H, which is a private document on rights and obligations.
2. On August 2, 2011, the Defendant’s uttering of the above investigation document: (a) presented and used the forged pre-sale contract to E in order to borrow money from E at the above D office as if it were a document duly formed; and (b) Nos. 4, 7 and 3-b of the attached list of crimes.
As described in the paragraph, the whole lease contract, which was forged more than four times in total, was exercised.
3. Fraud;
A. Around July 5, 2011, the Defendant, at the above D office, concluded that “A victim E, who was divorced with his wife, is entitled to receive a loan of KRW 45 million as a solatium, because he/she is required to divorce with his/her wife,” and that, if so, he/she would receive a loan from the former household within one month and repay the loan with his/her interest instead.”
However, at the time, the Defendant could not have been able to return to the former household because he was living in the building of H, the father of the Defendant at the time. At the time, the Defendant did not have any specific assets up to KRW 60,000,000, and most of the monthly wages were paid as interest to the Defendant’s obligations. However, even if he borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention
The defendant deceivings the victim and is under his control.