beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
The application for compensation order of this case shall be dismissed.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
"2018 Highest 328"
1. On July 11, 2017, the Defendant forged a private document under the title of “Agreement on Construction” using a computer at the office E company operated by the Defendant, Co., Ltd. on July 11, 2017: “Public mission: Lreaing and complex work: the installation and complex work of the F Corporation: the place of construction: the F Corporation Construction Finance Co., Ltd. in Ulsan Metropolitan City, U.S. PJT, the construction period: November 26, 2017 to Nov. 25, 2017; the construction amount of KRW 1,256,00,000 [Attachment]; the address of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, Trade Name: I (State): J. : J. : the representative director; J. : the name of the owner; the name of the owner; the name of the owner; the name of the owner; the name of the owner; the name of the owner; the name of the owner; the name of the owner; and the name of the owner;
Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the defendant has forged a copy of the construction agreement under the name of the representative director J, I, a private document related to rights and obligations.
2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, delivered a forged construction agreement to C through M to whom he/she was aware of the forgery, and subsequently exercised the said agreement as if the said construction agreement was duly concluded.
3. On July 27, 2017, the defrauded: (a) the Defendant re-subcontracted the victim C at the mutual infinite coffee shop located in the Eup/Myeon of the Busan District District Office (U.S.)’s articles of incorporation, “A Co., Ltd. was awarded a subcontract for the installation of electric installations and multiple works from EF, and said construction will be sub-subcontracted in KRW 1,369,80,000.
In order to do this work, 7 million won should be avoided from a bridge.
8. The phrase “the 61.6 million won, including the value added tax, was changed.”
However, the Defendant, as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2, has forged a construction agreement and performed the construction work as if he had been re-subcontracted by Company E from Company I, and the construction work has not been re-subcontracted.