beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
From around 1998, the Defendant was in office as the first representative director of the corporation established for the purpose of processing and selling livestock products in Ansan, and on July 2005, the Defendant resigned from the representative director and registered as the representative director by K, who is the Defendant’s children, but continued to participate in the operation of the corporation I even thereafter.
1. The Defendant forged securities: (a) on January 27, 2012, the name “HN, face value 3,5250,000 won; (b) the date of issuance of a promissory note and note number HO, face value 50,000 won; (c) January 27, 2012; (d) January 27, 2012; (e) January 27, 2012; (e) the date of issuance; (e) January 27, 2012; and (e) June 10, 2012; and (e) the two pages of the Promissory Notes issued on June 10, 2012.”
As a result, the Defendant forged the description of the rights and obligations in Chapter 2 of Promissory Notes, which are securities, for the purpose of exercising.
2. On January 27, 2012, the Defendant: (a) issued two copies of a forged promissory note to HP apartment store in Songpa-gu Seoul, Seoul; and (b) exercised each forged securities by exercising two copies of the forged promissory note as prescribed in paragraph (1).
3. On September 27, 2011, the Defendant, on September 27, 201, delivered a promissory note causing KRW 65 million, which the Defendant borrowed from AP to the victim HP apartment stores on September 27, 2011, to the victim HP apartment stores, as if they were acquired through a real commercial transaction, and as if they were, “The Promissory Notes discount is different. The amount of credit and interest due to be repaid is different, except for the amount of credit and interest due to be repaid,” and received KRW 50,300,00 from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant.
However, at the time, the Defendant was aware that the said promissory note was lent without a commodity transaction, but the fact was not notified to the victim, and that the said promissory note could not be settled normally on the date of payment.
In this respect.