beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Around February 2, 2015, the Defendant forged private documents at the store, a mobile phone sales store operated by the Defendant in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant: (a) made an inspection of the paper of the application for purchase of Maleh G, which was kept in the space; (b) made an inspection of the paper of the application for purchase of Maleh G, “D”, “E”, “F” in the contact column, “F”, and “F” in the bank account number column; (c) on the bank account number column, “I”, “I” in the relevant column, “J”, “W” in the relevant column, “W”, “W” in the name of the date of birth, “W 28”; and (d) made an entry of “D” in the application column, “24”, “15.2.”, and “B” in the applicant column; and (d) made at will made a signature next to the name of D.
As a result, the Defendant forged one copy of the application for Maleh Mobio booming in the name of the private document related to the rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.
2. The Defendant, at the time and at the place specified in paragraph (1), exercised the foregoing investigation document by displaying the can file in a forged application form using electronic facsimile as if it were a document duly formed, as described in paragraph (1), to an employee in the name of E&W, who is an agent of opening mobile phones, who is aware of the forgery.
3. The Defendant, at the time, at the place, as described in Paragraph 1, sent a copy of the application for Mamobbble, forged as described in Paragraph 1, and the copy of D’s resident registration certificate, as if it were the documents prepared and submitted by D in a normal cell phone opening, was sent after the cans to employees under the name of the victim S&P Co., Ltd. as described in Paragraph 2.
However, in fact, in an economic difficult situation, such as not paying properly the fee for the use of the mobile phone which the Defendant promised to substitute for many other customers at the time, the Defendant used the aforementioned forged documents and opened the mobile phone in the name of D falsely, and then disposed of the mobile phone terminal to the stolen business operator.