On August 27, 2017, the Defendant, without authority, recommended as a representative of the General Assembly in H2017, G, and the above person as a representative of D elementary school without authority to use a computer installed at the place to exercise his/her trade name on a non-time and non-time basis. < Amended by Act No. 1413, Aug. 27, 2017>

On August 22, 2017, a document was prepared, printed, and then a non-official seal prepared in advance on the language of the above elementary school principal was affixed, and then a new copy was forged, which is an official document under the name of the principal of the D elementary school principal, by means of copying it, and at around 15:00 on the same day, the letter of recommendation was submitted to the person related to the H representative meeting on the first floor of the Dogwon in the name of the Dogwon in I as if it was duly established.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a forged letter of recommendation;

1. Article 225 of the Criminal Act (the point of Article 25 of the Official Document) and Articles 229 and 225 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (the point of uttering of forged official document);

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. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 4 of the suspended sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, the reason for the suspended sentence: The depth of the error, and the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime (Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence) may be taken into consideration (Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (Article 59(1) of the same Act). Other Taekwondo coaches who committed a crime similar to the Defendant committed a crime committed by the testimony of the chief of the D Elementary School Administration (Article 59(1) of the same content as the letter of recommendation from the head of the D Elementary School School, but failed to possess on the day of the board of representatives).