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

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.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) violated the Road Traffic Act (drinking) and the Road Traffic Act (drinking without a license) driving a C-L car under the influence of alcohol with a maximum of 30 meters alcohol concentration of 0.076% in blood without a vehicle driver’s license on the front of the “CBS” shop set up at around 00:13 around that time from the front of the “CBS” station located in the same Dong to the front of the broadcasting station at the same time.

2. The unlawful uttering of official documents presented that the defendant was exposed to D, a police officer belonging to the metropolitan patrol unit of the Jeju National Police Agency, for the purpose of drinking and driving without a license on the road of the broadcasting station at the above time of the above day, and the defendant was requested to present a driver's license, and the defendant was presented the defendant's birth E driver's license as the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant denied the driver's license of the above vehicle, which is an official document in the name of the Seoul Regional Police Agency.

3. Around February 18, 2016, the Defendant engaged in the event of a private document forgery or the above investigation document as if he were E on the road front of the “CBS Broadcasting Station”. Around February 18, 2016, at around 00:33, the Defendant entered “E” in the lower driver confirmation column of the “A driver detection report” to the effect that “A driver discovered E after measuring 0.076% of alcohol content in blood alcohol as a result of drinking alcohol measurement on the driver E and then, issued it to the said police officer as if they were duly constituted. For the same purpose, the Defendant entered “E” in the lower part of the “A driver confirmation report prepared by the police officer F of the said metropolitan patrol group,” and issued it to F as if they were duly constituted.

Accordingly, the Defendant, for the purpose of uttering, forged the report on the detection of the driver in the name of E and one copy of the report on the circumstantial statement of the driver in the name of E, which is a private document on the proof of facts, and held the report around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1...