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

1. On January 31, 2013, the Defendant violated the Music Industry Promotion Act: (a) received KRW 25,000 per hour from a business owner in the “C Singing Practice Center” located in Sising City B; and (b) performed an act of drinking alcohol with four male customers and raising entertainment.

As a result, the defendant, for the purpose of profit-making, served as an entertainment for customers by drinking with customers, singing or dancing.

2. On January 31, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed the act described in paragraph (1) in the instant singing practice place around 22:30, and (b) was investigated on February 1, 2013 at the Sinung Police Station’s investigation and the Economic Team’s office, and (c) issued the police officer in charge of the investigation, stating the name of the said “D” in the suspect interrogation protocol, as if he were the genuine signature.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising authority, the Defendant forged and used the above “D” signature without authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

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

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Paragraph (1) of the Decision on the Determination of Punishment for the Crime: Article 34 (4) and Article 22 (2) of the Music Industry Promotion Act (Selection of Imprisonment): Article 239 (1) (a) of the Criminal Act and Article 239 (2) and (1) (a) of the Criminal Act (a point of exercising the above-mentioned signature)

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. When the Defendant was found to have engaged in singing practice, the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence was found, the Defendant forged and exercised his signature in order to avoid the occurrence of illegal stay.

The criminal act of the accused is not against the nature of the crime that interferes with the legitimate criminal investigation of public authority and deceptions the investigative agency.

However, the defendant.