2014 highest 59 highest 59 highest marc records, highest marc records, etc.

person

Han-hee (Public Trial) and Song-hee (Public Trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney in charge C

July 22, 2014

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Criminal facts

From February 6, 2012, the Defendant is a public official in charge of the protection of the human rights, counseling, disciplinary action, life guidance, etc. of the lake and marshed juveniles under the Ethical department located in Chuncheon City from around February 6, 2012. In relation to the “written opinion survey on the treatment of protected juveniles at least once a month against protected juveniles pursuant to Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Treatment of Protected Juveniles, Etc. in order to prevent the infringement of the human rights or unfair treatment of protected juveniles, the Defendant was willing to make a false report as if the protected juveniles responded to the “written opinion survey on the treatment” of the survey form, although they did not respond to the “written opinion survey on the treatment” of the survey form.

1. Compilation of public electronic records, etc.;

A. On January 7, 2013, the Defendant stated the following as follows: “When the protected juvenile was forced to engage in physical contact or sexual conduct which the protected juvenile does not want during his/her life?” “I am sexual harassment or infringement of human rights, such as intimidation, violence, bruth, reciting, king, etc., from the East’s living in this country?” “I am sexual harassment or infringement of human rights?” “I am brus that were given 3 or 4 answers to the total 20 items, such as “I ambrus that were directed at the interview?” and “I ambrus that were required to write 3 or 4 answers given to the above 20 items, such as “I OMR card,” that there was no false statement on the violation of human rights or unfair treatment of the protected juvenile using officially authorized computer fences in 10 pages.

On the same day, the E Classification Protection and psychological Inspection Office connected to the "F, which is an electronic records system operated by the Ministry of Justice," and then put 10 copies of the above OMR card into the automatic grading machine so that the false information can be compiled as the results of the public opinion polls in the above system.

Accordingly, the defendant has forged electronic records of public offices for the purpose of making administrative affairs smooth.

B. In the same manner as before February 7, 2013, the Defendant stated the false content as if there were no cases such as infringement of human rights or unfair treatment of protected juveniles using an inorganic name OMR card 10 in Chapter 10 of the No. OMR card, and then put them into the automatic grading machine, thereby compiling false information into the automatic grading machine.

Accordingly, the defendant has forged electronic records of public offices for the purpose of making administrative affairs smooth.

C. On March 11, 2013, the Defendant indicated the false content as if there were no cases such as infringement of human rights or unfair treatment of protected juveniles using an inorganic name OMR card in Chapter 10 of the No. OMR card, using a private pen for official approval, and then put it into the automatic grading machine, thereby compiling false information into the 'F's public opinion polls.

Accordingly, the defendant has forged electronic records of public offices for the purpose of making administrative affairs smooth.

D. On May 28, 2013, the Defendant indicated a false content as if there were no cases such as infringement of human rights or unfair treatment of protected juveniles using an inorganic name OMR card in Chapter 9 with a private pen for official approval, using the same method as the above paragraph (a), and then put it into the automatic grading machine to compile false information on “F”’s results of public opinion polls.

Accordingly, the defendant has forged electronic records of public offices for the purpose of making administrative affairs smooth.

2. Events, such as a false public electronic record;

As stated in paragraph 1, the defendant entered false information into "F" four times in total, and stored the content in the above item.

Accordingly, the defendant exercised a forged electronic record.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reporting results of each public opinion poll (the results of surveys conducted by attached public opinion poll and the results of compiling and processing special public opinion polls;

(including)

1. Each regular public opinion polls (OMR card);

1. Request for investigation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Each Criminal Code Article 227-2 (Occupation of Official Electronic Records), Articles 229 and 227-2 (Occupation of events, such as electronic records, etc.) of each Criminal Code

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed in the Uttering of Franchisc and Electronic Records, etc., of which the aggravation of the nature of the crime and the aggravation of the punishment is heavier on May 28, 2013)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account that there is no past record of criminal punishment even before the penalty is imposed)

Reasons for sentencing

Category 1, 2, and 3 Crimes

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 1 (Non-business Non-Organization) Basic Area (8 to 2 years), such as forgery, alteration, etc. of official documents, etc.

【Special Convicted Persons】

None

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: August to March 3.

* Written sentence comparison range: August to March 3:

【Determination of Sentence】

The Defendant wishes to suspend the sentence on the ground that the Defendant’s confessions all of the crimes of this case and is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor as a result of in-depth reflection of his depth. In full view of the materials submitted during the pleading process, it is recognized that the Defendant faithfully served as a public official and that the Defendant was in violation of the duty of care in this case. However, the crime of this case is an act of uncompeting the purpose of public opinion poll prepared to prevent human rights violations against the juveniles detained in a special place, such as a juvenile reformatory where human rights is dismissed, and it cannot be viewed that the Defendant’s act was committed in light of the cases of human rights violations, etc. against the juveniles detained in the prison, which are achieved in E, and the execution of the sentence is to be postponed by taking into account the mitigated sentencing factors as seen earlier. The Defendant is sentenced to eight months within the scope of the above recommendation.

Maximum money