beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months, by a fine of 1,500,000 won.
Defendant
D. The above fine.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
As a person in a de facto marital relationship, the Defendants, using personal information such as another person's resident registration number and address known through the Internet search, opened a cell phone in the name of another person in a mobile phone agency and gathered to raise money and valuables by disposing of the cell phone.
1. On March 4, 2013, the Defendants conspired to forge private document forgery at the “EN” mobile phone agency operated by the EL in Daegu-gu EM, and Defendant D signed the “EO” on the name of customer information column for application for membership of the said contract by using the verification color pen in Chapter 2 of the new contract form for the service located in the relevant location, and indicated “EO”, “EP” in the resident registration number column, and “EP” and “No. 201, 107, and 107,000,000 in the address column.” The Defendants signed the “EO” on the customer column for application for membership at the lower end and sealed it on the back.
Accordingly, the Defendants forged two copies of a new service contract in the name of EO for the purpose of exercising them in collusion.
2. The Defendants conspired in collusion to deliver two copies of the service contract in the name of the EO, which was forged, to the above EL, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, and at the same time and place, as if the document was duly formed.
3. The Defendants committed the act as if they were Defendant D with the victim EL at the time and place described in paragraph 1, and committed the act as if they would normally pay the mobile phone price and the communication price if they opened a mobile phone, and submitted two copies of a new service contract under the name of EO, such as the statement in paragraph 1.
However, in fact, the defendants were able to dispose of the mobile phone from the victim to use it as a living cost, and there was no intention or ability to pay the mobile phone price or the communication fee normally.
As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to induce the victim, and then that is, the victim's sum of the market value of 2,160,000 won from the victim's seat, gallon 2, e Q, and e.g.