beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. In the event that the Defendant entered into a private document forgery with C Apartment 102, 301, and used the deposit amount of KRW 60,000 for personal debt repayment, etc. regarding the existing residence. The Defendant, upon receiving a demand from his family members to present a written lease contract on the above apartment C, was willing to forge the written lease contract on the above residence and to present it to the Defendant’s family or creditor.
On December 2, 2014, the Defendant prepared a lease contract in the name of the lessor, using the computer, and affixed a seal of the name of D voluntarily produced in the name of the lessor, which is located in the column of the terms and conditions of the contract, after stating as follows: (a) "One hundred million Won, one hundred million Won, one in the column of the contract deposit; (b) "One million Won, one in the column of the contract; (c) Gyeonggi-do, Seoul, 102 Dong 301; and (d) "In the column of the lessee, Gyeonggi-do, E apartment, 109 Dong 104," and (c) "In the lessee column."
Accordingly, the defendant has forged one copy of the lease agreement in the name of D, a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of exercising the right.
2. On September 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a request from G to the effect that he/she had a deposit for lease from the said G to prove that he/she had a deposit for lease; and (b) exercised a forged lease contract, such as the preceding paragraph, by presenting it to the said G by presenting it to the said G, who is aware of the forgery.
3. On June 3, 2015, the defrauded made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant borrowed a full repayment even if he/she received money,” from the victim G located in Ansan-si F, and that “The Defendant borrowed a full repayment even if he/she received money.”
However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any deposit but did not have any other property, on the other hand, did not have any intention or ability to repay the loan even if it borrowed money from the damaged person.
Nevertheless, the defendant is guilty.