However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. From October 5, 2013 to October 16:09 of the same day to October 16:30 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) was the suspect of the assault case occurred in Yangsan-si “C” located in Yangsan-si; (b) was investigated as a suspect within the investigation station located in Yangsan-si, and within a strong 2 team office; and (c) was investigated, the Defendant was under investigation; and (d) was under investigation, the Defendant signed the “D” on the side of the person who made the statement of the suspect examination of suspect; and (d) forged another’s signature without authority for the purpose of exercising his/her name by using an official seal affixed to the name.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as indicated in paragraph (1), issued the suspect interrogation protocol whose signature was forged to the police officer in charge as if he were duly signed, and exercised it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning suspect examination of D;

1. Requesting the re-preparation of a report, such as the transmission of corrected data according to the personal chart;

1. Materials of investigation cards;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes upon fingerprint verification;

1. Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of private signature) and Article 239 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was examined by the police as the suspect of the assault case, and the defendant signs his name next to the statementer of the suspect interrogation protocol, and issued it to the police officer. Such defendant's behavior could lead to confusion in the investigation if the defendant's behavior could lead to confusion in the investigation. Also, considering the circumstances leading to the defendant's crime of this case, there is a high possibility for criticism.

However, there is no record that the defendant has been punished in excess of the fine prior to this case.