beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months, and imprisonment for one year and two months, respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
【Criminal Power】 On October 2, 2014, the Defendants were sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of forging securities at the Seoul Eastern District Court and two years of suspended execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 11, 2014.
【Criminal Facts】 The Defendants were urged to repay the obligation amounting to KRW 30 million from the victim E, and the Defendants were in custody of the judgment of the court of the first instance to the effect that Defendant B lent KRW 30 million to F and confirmed that there was the F’s seal impression book, personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, and F had about KRW 240 million claim for payment of deposit money from F for the purpose of securing that the Defendant B had been in custody with the judgment of the court of first instance. The Defendants forged a promissory note, etc. in the F’s name using the above documents, and provided them to the victims and provided them with money borrowed from the victims.
Defendant
B on September 12, 2013, a notary public located in Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 1705 (hereinafter referred to as the “Seo-dong”), opened the above documents to Defendant A in front of the new law firm, and Defendant A obtained the right of request for payment of deposit money under the name of F with the seal of F’s owner attached to the name attached to the name of the said name and affixed the seal of F in advance, and delivered it to the victim as if the latter was duly authorized by F and as if the latter were to have been entrusted with the authority by F. In the face of a promissory note, “E”, “E”, “E”, “E in the face of a bill amount column,” “2013, 9, 12”, and “I”, “E”, “I”, “E”, “I”, “I”, and “I”, and “I” had the right of request payment of deposit money under the name of F to the victim as security.”
However, in fact, the Defendants did not have been delegated by F with the authority to exercise the right to claim payment of the total amount of the above deposit, and there was no amount of KRW 240 million at the face value in F’s name.