logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016고단171
사문서위조등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendants were in the transactional relationship, such as borrowing money from victims K, with the trade name of “J”, as those operating the Internet shopping mall.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal - the Defendants’ co-principal - the forgery of an officetel pre-use charter contract and the use thereof were asked by the said K Co., Ltd. to replace any security without real value to the Defendant B, with the intention of offering the relevant deposit amount of KRW 10 million, and an officetel of KRW 900,000 per month as security.

On May 6, 2015, the Defendants displayed the actual lease contract L 301 Dong 1203, which is Defendant B’s residence, and Defendant B displayed the actual lease contract to Defendant A. Defendant A, after reporting the lessor’s personal information, etc., Defendant A voluntarily sealed M and P sealed in the form of “real estate” in the “real estate lease contract for officetels,” which was stored in advance by using a computer. The “real estate location” in the “real estate” column in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L 301 Dong 1203,” and “security deposit” column, “M, N, and broker name” into “M,” and printed out “OB’s representative P,” etc. in the “lease’s name” column, and then, the Defendants signed the printed document M and N’s name, respectively, and sealed M and P’s seal in advance.

Then, around May 8, 2015, the Defendants issued a false studio charter contract to R, who is an employee of the above corporation, as if it were a document duly formed.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendants forged and used an officetel charter contract in the name of M and N, a private document related to rights and obligations.

2. Defendant A’s sole criminal defendant is unable to provide the existing collateral to K Co., Ltd., thereby demanding new collateral from the victimized company, or for the operation of the said J.

arrow