A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On October 1, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court, and a summary order of 4 million won as a fine in the same court on August 30, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Around 22:30 on May 7, 2014, the Defendant driven a B NAS car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.194% without obtaining a driver’s license on a section of approximately 500 meters from the 500-meter radius from the nive line of the trade name in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul to the 676 front road.

2. The Defendant was driving under drinking alcohol at the above time and place of the unlawful uttering of official document.

The discovery of the driver's license was requested to be presented from the slope D belonging to the Gangnam Police Station C District.

The defendant presented a first-class ordinary driver's license under the name of the director of the Incheon Police Agency, a public document in possession, as the defendant's driver's license.

Accordingly, the defendant did not use official documents.

3. The Defendant forged private document at the above date and time, place of accompanying, reason for accompanying, police officer in charge, police officer in charge, and date, stated “E” in the “E”, “E”, and “E” in the name column of the site of notification on the result of the influence of alcohol driving as proposed by D, and marked on the “E” in the name column of the site of the written report on the driver’s driving under the influence of alcohol driving as proposed by D, respectively.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a voluntary written consent of driving, notification of the results of the influence of drinking driving, and a report on the situation of drinking drivers, respectively, in E, which is a private document of a certificate of fact.

4. The defendant at the time and place of the uttering of the above investigation document as above is against D who is aware of the forgery.