However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The Defendant, around May 30, 2016, stored and stored a tax payment certificate (issuance number: D) in the name of the director of the tax office in Incheon, which was issued through the Internet Homebook, in the name of the Defendant’s computer. From July 6, 2018, the Defendant converted the instant can file from the Defendant’s office of Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, 380 Dong 604 to the AI file that can correct the file, and submitted the previous “31.01.01.01.08,” the previous date of issuance to the employee “O. 30.05.02, 2016.05.02,” and the previous date of issuance to the “O. 02.02, 2018.07.07.02,” and then output it to the “O.06.07.00,000,000 local headquarters in the south of the Republic of Korea.”

2. On July 9, 2018, the Defendant changed the issuance number of the above certificate of tax payment (issuance No. D) issued in the same manner as that set forth in the preceding paragraph at the office of the Defendant around the morning, to “F”, to “F”, to “08.08”, and the date of issuance” to “08.09.01,” respectively, and printed out the date of issuance, and then submitted it to an employee who is unaware of the circumstances at the headquarters of the Republic of Korea Special Metropolitan City and Rural Community Corporation around the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant modified the tax payment certificate under the name of the director of North Incheon Tax Office, which is an official document, for the purpose of exercising two times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about taxes for each tax payment certificate and issuance of certificates of civil petitions;

1. Article 225 of the Criminal Act in relation to the facts constituting an offense (a point of altered official documents), Articles 229 and 225 of the Criminal Act (a point of uttering of altered official documents);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below) of the suspended sentence (the scope of recommendation) is [the scope of recommendation] the document forgery, alteration, etc. in the mitigated area (4 months to 1 year), (4 months to 1 year), and social risks are not realized since the ultimate purpose of the crime is not achieved.