Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
"2015 Highest 3071"
1. On May 3, 2013, the Defendant is seeking to subscribe to a smartphone in the name of D in relation to the location of the office located in the KT TP branch located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 29-1, Songpa-gu.
D’s consent is written to the foregoing C, which is well aware of the fact, stated “D, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul E 31 Dong 101,” “D May 3, 2013,” and “D” in the customer information column of the application for this le mobile accession, and made the applicant sign the application for the said accession with the signature of the Signatory, and signed it on the Signatory’s column. In accordance with the said application for the accession, the said C signed it on the “written consent for inquiry and use of credit information,” “written consent for collection and use of personal information, joint statement of entrusted service,” and “application for this le mobile agreement discount.”
As a result, the Defendant forged an application form in the name of No. D, a private document related to rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering, and forged a private document in the name of No. 12 in the name of No. 1, as shown in the List 1, from that time to October 2013, the Defendant forged an application form in the name of No. 12.
2. At the time, at the time, and at the place specified in the foregoing paragraph 1, the Defendant exercised a total of 12 documents pertaining to the investigation in the name of four as shown in the attached Table 1 for the crime committed from October 2013, by presenting an application for the rab mobile subscription in the name of D, which was forged, to F in charge, as described in the foregoing paragraph 1.
3. On March 2013, the Defendant would allow the victim I to enter the H coffee shop located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, so that the victim I can show the number of smartphones to a large number of mobile phones simultaneously with a computer.
“.......”
However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to allow the victim to send a large number of letters even if he/she was delegated with the purchase of smartphones or received personal information from the victim, and the victim and the victim.