(G) When the Defendant, who was the head of the original state branch of B, was requested by (g)B to submit criminal records at the time of his/her employment, he/she was sentenced to the suspension of execution three years and six months from the original state branch of the Chuncheon District Court on August 21, 2012 due to occupational embezzlement, etc., and was sentenced to the suspension of execution three years and six months from January 16, 2013.

1. Around April 29, 2013, the Defendant altered official document: (a) instructed D, the secretary general, at the office of the original state branch B located in the original state branch C, the head of the original state police station, to change the date of issuance of a reply to criminal records (issuance No. 3117) to the Defendant issued under the name of the head of the original state police station; and (b) made a copy of the output stated “No. 29, April 29, 2013,” which was attached to the date of issuance of the reply to criminal records.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the defendant modified a reply to criminal records of the defendant, which was made in the name of the chief of the original police station, for the purpose of uttering.

2. The Defendant at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, sent the modified official document by facsimile to the person in charge of (g)B located in Chuncheon City E, as if the written reply to the foregoing modified official document was duly issued.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. D's written confirmation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (G hearing statements);

1. Article 225 of the Criminal Act, Articles 229 and 225 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Among concurrent offenders, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are those who are disqualified for the suspension of execution under the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, due to the previous conviction of the first head in the judgment, and each of the crimes of this case is prescribed by the statutory penalty, so the sentence of the defendant is inevitable.