beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Around September 2009, the Defendant, as an employee of a company selling a secondhand car in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D”, sold to E a secondhand car in the name of 46 million won, and the said car in the name of 29.9 million won in the name of victim F, the mother of E, and the purchase price was paid by borrowing KRW 29.9 million in the name of the victim from Hyundai Capital Capital Capital, and the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of the vehicle price, the registration tax, the automobile insurance premium, and the individual car fee for E with the burden of payment by E.
When the defendant decided that E had no means to repay the above 28.77 million won at the same time, he had the intent to forge the certificate of borrowing in the name of the victim.
1. Around September 23, 2009, the Defendant forged private documents by printing out the form of “the tea paper” in the form of “the tea paper” in the foregoing D office on paper A4, and then paying the amount column to A on March 22, 2010, “24%” and “23% in the form of payment” and “the creditor on March 23, 2010 in the interest column.”
“Subject to the loss of the benefit of time” at least once, when the payment of interest is delayed, the debtor column “as of September 23, 2009” forged a copy of the letter of borrowed money in the name of the victim, which is a private document on the rights and obligations, for the purpose of using the victim’s name, resident registration number, and address in the column of preparation, and attaching the victim’s seal prepared in advance to the above name.
2. Although the facts charged as to the uttering of the above investigation documents and the time and place of the event are indicated as identifying sources, the fact that the Defendant, in addition to the confession, applied for a payment order to the court is recognized by evidence, and thus, it does not seem to be disadvantageous to the Defendant. Thus, the above correction is ex officio.