except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Alteration of an official document;

A. The Defendant is a person who operates mechanical manufacturing and parts processing companies with the trade name “D” in Daegu-gu C.

On July 25, 2011, in order to enhance the test result of the machinery to be supplied by the Defendant, the Defendant printed “1.5” on the top of the stamp strength test column of the seal strength of “E” (documents No. 02-201-01601) at the office of the above D (name prior to the change) and changed the seal strength by means of printing “9.3” on the top of the stamp strength marked as “9.3, and copying it again.

B. The Defendant changed the entry “12.5” into “13.9” in the seal strength column of the test and analysis report (documents No. 02-2011-01604) at the above date, time, and at the same time, entered “88 in the test result column” in the same manner as the entry in paragraph 1(a).

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant modified two copies of the test and analysis report under the name of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration in Busan and Ulsan District.

2. On July 29, 2011, the Defendant: (a) supplied two copies of the modified test and analysis report, which are parts of the thermal power plant, to the employees of the F (State) Ethical Power Headquarters, at the D Office, and exercised as if they were genuine by sending them together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Original copy of each test result analysis report, and any modification of each test result;

1. Requests for verification of authenticity of test results and replies to verification of authenticity of test results;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on internal investigation reports (H telephone communications);

1. Article 225 (Occupancy of Alteration of Official Document) of the Criminal Act as well as Articles 229 and 225 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Mutual Crimes of Uttering Official Documents by Alteration);

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