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

On October 26, 2016, around 06:30 on October 26, 2016, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol in a “D” restaurant operated by the Defendant and C located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the Defendant and C, he reported to the police by C on the ground that C tried to do self-harm.

At the time, the Defendant, as a matter of course due to the unpaid fine, committed the following crimes with intent to misappropriate the personal information of the pro-friendly F, who was in peace, by concerns over paying a fine or receiving a disposition of detention in a workhouse, in the event that the personal information of the Defendant is true.

1. On October 26, 2016, the Defendant signed a private signature: (a) around 16:00, at the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Police Station E and office located in Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul; (b) the resident registration number and address of friendly F, being investigated by sloping G, and entered “F” in the column of “person who has made a statement” at the end of the suspect interrogation protocol.

Accordingly, the defendant has forged F's signature without authority for the purpose of exercising his authority.

2. The Defendant, at the above time and place, submitted a suspect interrogation protocol to E and affiliated assistant G, Seoul Gangnam Police Station E and affiliated assistant G, who knew of the forgery, as if the signature forged was duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a protocol (F name) concerning the interrogation of suspect, and a report of investigation (applicable to personal misappropriation of a suspect);

1. Article 239 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act relating to the facts constituting an offense;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Although it is not good that the crime of this case was committed during the probation period due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, it is recognized that the probation period has expired, and that the mistake has been recognized and divided.