logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.23 2014고정4083
사문서위조등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Forgery of private documents;

A. On October 8, 2012, the Defendant, without authority, forged one copy of a new service contract under the name of E, a private document on rights and obligations, stating the name, resident registration number, and address of E in the column for customer information on application for subscription to a mobile phone service contract and the applicant column without the authority for the purpose of exercising within the 1st floor D of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, where B serves as an employee.

B. On November 7, 2012, the Defendant, without authority, forged one copy of a new service contract under the name of E, which is a private document on rights and obligations, after recording the name, resident registration number, and address of E in the column of customer information and the applicant column for application for subscription to a new contract for mobile phone service without authority for the purpose of exercising it at the above location.

2. Uttering a falsified investigation document;

A. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in paragraph 1(a), delivered the forged new service contract to B as if it was duly formed.

B. The Defendant, at the time, and at the place specified in Paragraph 1(b), delivered the forged new service contract to B as if it was duly formed.

3. Fraud;

A. Although there was no fact that E has delegated the opening of a mobile phone at the time and place mentioned in paragraph 1(a), the Defendant submitted a forged service new contract to B and used the mobile phone in general as if E delegated the opening of a mobile phone.

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price even if he/she uses the mobile phone in the name of E.

The Defendant acquired property profits equivalent to KRW 1.2 million in total, including the user fee of the mobile phone and the terminal fee of KRW 961,400, in a way that he/she did not pay the price even after he/she opened and used the mobile phone in the name of E from B.

(b).

arrow