logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.09.05 2012고정2426
사문서위조등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant,

1. On July 30, 2010, the date and time of the crime as stated in the indictment on August 1, 2010, which is the date and time of the crime, appears to be the clerical error as of August 1, 2010. As such, the above correction is required. At the office of the Korea Trade Agency in Yeongdeungpo-gu, the car sales contract related to the FIststo vehicles in the “D Trading Agency” is forged by means of printing the name of the transferor in a computer using the name of the transferor in the name of “E”, “G”, address, and telephone number column in the column of the resident registration number column of “E” and printing it in the name of the transferor in the computer using the computer without the victim’s permission. As such, each of the above corrective sales contract is deemed to be a clerical error as of August 1, 2010, which is the date and time of forgery No. 1 through 23 of the list of crimes in the attached Form No. 23, as stated in the indictment.

2. On August 1, 2010, the tax invoice 61 as indicated in the [Attachment Table 24-83] No. 24-83 of July 30, 2010 and August 1, 2010, in the name column of the supplier of the tax invoice for Frocketing vehicles stated “E” and the address column of the place of business as “E” and the name column in the manner of forging it by affixing the corporate seal of the company in the name column, and forged 61 copies of the tax invoice as described in the [Attachment Table 24-83] above;

3. On October 25, 2010, around October 25, 2011, the date of the crime written in indictment, which is the date of the crime, is deemed to be a clerical error in around October 25, 2010. As such, the correction must be made as above. In the Matri-si Office located in Samdong-dong, the forged tax invoice 61, as described in paragraph (2), was submitted to the public official in charge of the name unrecogn who may know of the fact, and was exercised.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement by the witness J;

1. Statement of E in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. 24 copies, etc. of an automobile transfer certificate, and the application of tax invoices under the Acts and subordinate statutes of 61;

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act, selection of fines for criminal facts, and selection of fines.

arrow