However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On January 1, 1982, the Defendant was appointed as a public official of Grade VII of C viewing Cultural Heritage, and is currently in charge of the designation of cultural heritage in the C viewing Culture and Tourism Department, the accounting of cultural heritage, and the direction-setting of cultural heritage.

On August 9, 2012, the Defendant was entrusted with the issuance of confirmation documents as to whether the E’s total nine parcels of land owned by E from the F of E’s office site F (the title of the traditional temple preservation site is changed to the current traditional temple preservation site as a result of the amendment of a law) on the total nine parcels of land owned by E. Of nine parcels of land owned by the said temple, G (7,550 square meters) is a site for a public parking lot, and H (224,166 square meters) is a site for a public parking lot, and H (24,166 square meters) is an area adjacent to an I’s land category in which it is difficult for neighboring residents to cultivate by leasing from the beginning. It was well known that there is no land actually cultivated by neighboring residents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant prepared an official document by linking his/her own administrative electronic information system to the receiver E, stating in the receiver E, that “I will notify the receptioner E of whether or not the traditional temple land exists” and the main text of “I will inform K of the fact that the total nine parcels of land including G (forest, forest, 7,550 square meters), H (224,166 square meters), is not directly related to the traditional temple, and is not within the traditional temple boundary because there is no direct relation with the traditional temple.” After obtaining approval from K of the Director of C viewer Culture and Tourism, the Defendant registered in the administrative electronic document system (culture and tourism and 13160 square meters ( August 9, 2012) as if the false official electronic record was prepared.

In this respect, the defendant entered false official electronic records with a view to interfering with administrative affairs, and exercised the forged official electronic records.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each of the defendants;