A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, the father of the Defendant, in the Daegu Metropolitan City Suwon-gu, brought money on the victim F, who was the credit service provider, by deceiving the “E” business operator, who was the father of the Defendant, as his own.

1. Around September 2016, the Defendant forged a public document and forged a private document: (a) output a paper paper stating “E”, “A”, “A”, “G”, and the date of publication on August 25, 2010, using a computer in the above “E” store; (b) attach it to the resident registration certificate (registration number: H) in the name of the head of the Dong-gu tax office; (c) copy it; (d) attach a paper to the lessee column at the bottom of the lease agreement with respect to the said “E” store; and (d) copy it to the name of the office “E”, “A”, and “I” in the name of the representative column, and the registration number column.

Accordingly, the defendant, for the purpose of exercising his official document, set forth the business registration certificate under the name of the head of the Dong-gu Tax Office and one copy of the lease contract under the name of D, which is a private document on the rights and duties.

2. Around September 13, 2016, the Defendant held the forged official document and the foregoing investigation document: (a) around September 13, 2016, at the street near the said “E” store, issued a forged business operator registration certificate and a lease contract to the said victim who is aware of the fact.

3. Around September 13, 2016, the Defendant was a business operator of the “E” store, and the Defendant was entitled to return the deposit amount of KRW 50 million as a lessee of the said store building. Accordingly, the Defendant borrowed KRW 8 million as security and made a false statement.

However, in fact, the defendant was merely the point of "E" store, and the lessee of the store interest store building in the store was D, the father of the defendant, and the defendant did not have the right to return the lease deposit.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and from September 13, 2016, the victim is suffering from the victim.