beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2013.12.17 2013고정573

공문서부정행사

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 2, 2013, at around 16:50, the Defendant was found to drive a DNA car, which is a vertical vehicle, on the front of the Sejong-si, Chuncheon-si, and was asked to present a F Driver’s License from the border of the Chuncheon Police Station E-gu.

The defendant presented a first-class ordinary driver's license under the name of the chief of the Gangwon Police Agency, which is an official document in possession, as if the defendant was the defendant's driver's license.

In this way, the defendant did not use official documents.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Part of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant

1. Report on the occurrence of the case;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of driver's license

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since the defendant was in the period of suspended execution due to driving without a license at the time of this case, the police officer's request to present identification card and presented a model G G G driver's license immediately, and that it did not constitute a crime since there was no intention to deny official documents at the time of this case.

2. On July 2, 2013, at around 16:50 on July 2, 2013, the following facts acknowledged by the evidence revealed: (a) the Defendant presented a dead-type G driver’s license, which was in possession of a request to present identification card from the head of the E District 2 patrol team F, while driving a DNA-type G driver’s license in the vicinity of the Sejong Sincheon-dong, Seocheon-gu, Sejong; (b) at the time, the Defendant was in the period of suspension of the execution due to without a driver’s license; and (c) the Defendant was not holding the driver’s license due to a non-exclusive driving; and (d) the Defendant was erroneous to the effect that the Defendant was aware that he would leave the police officer’s driver’s license.