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

On November 26, 2012, at around 00:50 on November 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the grounds that he franchising female descendants would incur a trial expense to employees who assaulted C; and (b) arrested the police officer dispatched as a flagrant offender, and (c) arrested the police officer as a flagrant offender, the Defendant used the DNA’s personal information, a member of the sports center that he works in order to conceal the fact that the unpaid amount of a fine

1. On November 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 02:47, the Defendant: (b) received an investigation into the instant assault case from the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station Criminal and the Seoul Youngdong Police Station Criminal 2-11 located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul; and (c) entered D’s personal information in the statement column of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared as if D stated.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged the signature of the other party D for the purpose of exercising the right.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place under paragraph (1), issued the protocol of interrogation of a suspect containing a forged signature to E, who is aware of the fact, as if it was duly formed, and exercised the protocol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to suspect suspect interrogation protocol;

1. Article 239 (1) and Article 293 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act of the relevant Act concerning facts constituting an offense (the point of exercise of a false investigation or signature);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62-2 or more of the Criminal Act;