A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, on January 2015, caused the increase in the number of water immunitys that may be taken for about 2 months on a day due to the fact that he/she continuously took off the immunitys between the male-gu and the hedged for about 2 months, and caused the increase in the number of water immunitys that can be taken by hospitals, and thus, there was a lack of water immunitys that can be taken by the hospital, which is merely 28 days in the month of a month in which the other person’s personal information was used. As such, the Defendant expressed his/her intent to purchase a large quantity of exempted waters by using a prescription issued by stealing the other person’s personal information.

1. Forging a private document;

A. On January 7, 2018, the Defendant: (a) entered the Diplomatic Team in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City as nursing and cooking staff; (b) entered the funeral room using the gap in which there is no employee working on holidays at the time; (c) contacted the Defendant’s University-Friendly F of the Defendant’s University-F of the prescription issuing program, by entering the ID and password of the doctor E, and accessing the “voluntary” as the program for issuing the prescription; and (d) entered the F’s personal information in the patient column as if the Defendant’s University-Friendly F of the University was diagnosed at the hospital; and (e) entered the prescription column “10 g, 28 g,” which is a primary mental medicine, and then printed out the prescription.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant, as indicated in [Attachment E] Nos. 1 through 7] of the same day, including forging a letter of prescription in the name of doctor E, which is a private document related to fact-finding, committed each of the above-mentioned methods, 7 pages of prescription in the name of doctor E, which is a private document related to fact-finding, over seven times in total.

B. On January 20, 2018, the Defendant, at the above D medical clinic around January 20, 2018, connected the “voluntary” method as above, entered G’s personal information into the patient column as if the Defendant had been treated at the hospital, which is the birth parents of the Defendant’s company, as if he had been treated at the hospital, and then entered the prescription column into the prescription column, and then printed out the said prescription.

Accordingly, the defendant is under the name of doctor E, a private document on fact verification for the purpose of uttering.