A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 6, 2012, at D points located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (a) stated “E”, “F”, “E”, and “E” in the name column of customer information; (b) forged a “new service contract” in the name of E, a private document concerning rights and obligations by signing the contract subsequent thereto; (c) issued a forged “new service contract” to the person in charge of the said D branch, who is aware of the fact on the same day, as if it was a document duly formed; (d) ordered the said person to execute the new service contract; and (e) by deceiving the said person by deceiving him of the aforementioned person, such as the act of carrying out the service as if he or she is E, he or she was aware of the fact that he or she had the aforementioned person in charge of the mobile phone gallon system, which is the market price of 899,800 won.

2. On November 11, 2012, the Defendant forged the “E”, “F”, “E”, “E”, and “E” in the name of the applicant customer information column using a verification-type pen on the paper of “application for change of terminal/USIM” for the purpose of uttering at the above D branch. On the same day, the Defendant forged the “application for change of the device/USIM” in the name of E, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, by signing it next to the applicant customer column, and issued the forged “application for change of the device/USIM” to the person in charge of the above D branch as if the document was duly formed. The Defendant deceiving the said person by deceiving him, such as using the device/her as if he/she were E, and by deceiving him/herself, got the said person in charge of the mobile phone “S3” 891,400 won at the market price of the mobile phone.

3. On January 6, 2013, the Defendant, at around 22:00, obtained the “I” store for the operation of the Victim H located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G, and the Defendant, even if he received the alcohol from the victim, did not have the intent or ability to pay the price. The Defendant, upon receiving the amount equivalent to KRW 180,000 (180,000) from the victim.