except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Around 11:10 on December 20, 2012, the Defendant committed assault against the victim by breaking the breath’s breath in the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, by driving his own cargo, resulting in cargo vehicles and vision of the victim B (the age of 37) while driving his own cargo, and hearing the breath from the victim, resulting in the breath of the victim’s breath’s breath.

2. The Defendant damaged the property at the time, time, and place described in Paragraph 1, accompanied by a duct, which is a tool for a vehicle in the Defendant’s cargo vehicle, located in the Defendant’s cargo vehicle, with a ductator owned by the Victim B.

3. Around December 20, 2012, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) driving, around 11:10, 2012, driven D car-type truck without a car driver’s license on a section of about 24km from the front of the industrial complex on the bridge, Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon to the 174-dong 174-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul.

4. On January 22, 2013, the Defendant was asked to present an identification card by the slope E belonging to the relevant police station upon being investigated at the 3 team office of the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station located in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, 1078-1, and upon being investigated as a case of the above assault, etc. at around 18:15.

The defendant presented F's first class driver's license under the name of the chief of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, which is an official document in possession, as if he was the defendant's driver's license.

5. On January 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the 3st team office of the criminal team as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (4) around 18:54; (b) received interrogation from the above E; and (c) stated “F” in the “statement” column of the interrogation protocol prepared by the above E; and (d) submitted the protocol of interrogation containing a forged private signature to the above E as if it were genuine.

Accordingly, the defendant forged and exercised F's private signature for the purpose of exercising it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1.With respect to F: