logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.12.17 2020고정1529
사문서위조등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 12, 2020, the Defendant: (a) at the C administrative welfare center located in Daegu-gu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, (b) around May 12, 2020, entered his/her spouse D’s resident registration number along with D’s consent to provide financial information, etc.; and (b) forged the written consent to provide financial information, etc. in the name of D; (c) submitted the written consent to provide financial information, etc. to the person in charge of the above welfare center as if the written consent to provide financial information, etc. was a document prepared genuinely.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (person in charge of the C Welfare Center), investigation reports (Attachment of letters sent by a suspect to the victim), investigation reports (Attachment of bankbooks for livelihood subsidies received by a suspect), investigation reports (Attachment of bankbooks for livelihood subsidies received by a suspect), investigation reports (to replys in the currency of a person in charge of livelihood

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234, 231 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for an offense, and Articles 234, and 231 of the Criminal Act, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among the concurrent offenders eligible for the imposition of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the defendant for the reason of sentencing of the provisional payment order, and there is no record of criminal punishment, the court determined that the fine under the summary order is appropriate, considering the favorable circumstances, the background and purpose of the crime, and the fact that the nominal owner expresses his/her intent to punish the defendant.

arrow