However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On December 31, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the victim at the “C” restaurant located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Seoul-si, on the ground that he saw the victim D (60 years old) who was seated in a double blap, he saw him as his hand, and assaulted the victim at the time of her boom.

2. Although a public prosecutor indicted for a crime of unlawful use of private signature, “illegal use” means using a genuine signature to a third party without legitimate authority, and the Defendant’s act constitutes “a forgery” rather than an illegal use, since it was made by creating a private signature of G without authority.

As a matter of whether the Defendant has led to a confession of all facts, and whether the “misappropriation” or “misappropriation” is recognized, there is no difference in statutory penalty and no disadvantage in the exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense.

In light of this, it is recognized that it is not in accordance with the amendment procedures.

At around 04:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) arrested at the police station F District of Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant forged the above G’s private signature by making it known “G” to the confirmation column of the certificate of arrest of flagrant offenders for the purpose of continuous exercise. The Defendant forged the above G’s private signature by entering “G” in the confirmation column of the certificate of arrest of flagrant offenders for the purpose of continuous exercise.

3. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties on the same day at H division and office of the police station of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Suwon Mycheon-ro 199, and the Defendant used the above “G” in the name of the said “G,” which led to the need to arrange documents by the slope I belonging to the said police station, as the documents need to be arranged.

In response to this, it is argued that the above I did not want to guide the defendant's arms as a seat in the atmosphere, and that he did not expand the floor in the course of he did so, and that he did not do so in both hands.