The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspension of execution, observation of protection, and community service order 160 hours) against the Defendant on the summary of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal is unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

2. In the trial of the party, the prosecutor held that the name of the crime as to the part of paragraph 4 of the facts charged in the instant case is “an electronic document, etc., such as a private electronic document, and an electronic document, etc.,” and the applicable legal provision is “Article 227-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 229 of the Criminal Act,” and “Articles 232-2 and 234 of the Criminal Act,” respectively, and signed the facts charged as if he was required by the above C to sign the signature column of the driver of the instant terminal.

Accordingly, the Defendant, for the purpose of performing the duties of the National Police Agency, forged the records of the crackdown on drinking driving, which is an electronic record, and had the above C know of the fact, send the records of the crackdown on driving of drinking, as if they were actually prepared, to the traffic police computer network to reach the public records.

“D” is ordered by the above C to sign the signature column of the driver of the above terminal, and the above C delivered the above device to the above C who knew of the forgery on the same page, thereby allowing the above C to transmit the written inquiry about the crackdown on the operation of drinking, as if it was duly formed, to the police internal computer network.

In this respect, the defendant cited a written inquiry about the crackdown on drinking driving by D, an electronic record on proof of facts, for the purpose of hindering the management of affairs, and exercised it.

“A request for amendments to a bill of amendment was made to each of the changes, and this Court was permitted to do so, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for reversal of authority, and without examining the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing, the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.