A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 23, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment at the Gwangju District Court for fraud; on August 11, 2012, the execution of the sentence was terminated; on April 12, 2017, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced that he/she was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the commission of securities fraud; on August 31, 2017, the judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant forged a private document: (a) entered in the application form for Hyundai Doglon loan in a non-permanent place in Seoul (Seoul) around July 17, 2015; (b) entered “C” in the customer name column using lux-type color pent; (c) “D, 102 Dong 101” in the State column; and (d) stated “C” in the loan agreement column; and (c) held “C” in the applicant column.

C’s painting was stamped by his name.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a double loan application in the name of C, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

2. Around the day specified in paragraph (1), the Defendant, at the office of the “F” office at Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ga, submitted a forged middle loan application to G, who is an employee of “F” who is aware of the forgery, as if it were duly formed.

3. The defrauded filed a heavy loan application as described in paragraph (2) with the purport that he/she would obtain C’s consent with respect to the application for heavy loan, and that he/she would borrow 28 million won of the purchase price of the said vehicle in Hland under C, and would repay the loan between 36 months per week by lending 28 million won of the purchase price of the said vehicle to the effect that he/she would repay the loan between 36 months per week, and thereafter, he/she filed a heavy loan application as described in paragraph (2) with the employee in charge of the victims Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. and the telephone communications with the victim to the effect that he/she applied for a loan normally as C.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have obtained consent from C for the purchase or loan of motor vehicles, and the above application for the loan was also prepared by the defendant at will.

The defendant.