A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving service of B-learning automobiles (hereinafter referred to as “instant automobiles”).

1. On June 2014, the Defendant: (a) in Do Officetel E, the victim C’s residence; (b) in order to continue driving even after the driver’s license was revoked, the Defendant: (c) had the victim’s vehicle driver’s license stolen the victim’s driver’s license to use it; and (d) had the victim’s vehicle driver’s license, which was placed on the container, stolen with the victim’s license.

2. On May 9, 2019, the Defendant was driving the instant vehicle without a driver’s license in the state of under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.064% from the 20km section from the front of the F house at the time of the Government of Jung-gu to the front of G at the same 21:40 on May 21, 2019.

3. The Defendant’s unlawful uttering of official document was discovered at the time and place specified in paragraph (2), and was demanded to produce a driver’s license from the slopeH belonging to the same Dual Police Station. The Defendant, as stated in paragraph (1), presented C’s driver’s license, which was stolen and possessed, as if the Defendant were the Defendant’s driver’s license, and exercised the official document unlawfully.

4. When the Defendant was discovered through drinking and unlicensed driving at the time, place, etc. as stated in paragraph (2), the Defendant arbitrarily stated the name and signature of “C” in the driver’s name column of the “C” report on the driver’s circumstantial statement as if he were C.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising a certificate of fact, the Defendant forged one copy of “the circumstantial statement of the prime driver” in the name of C, which is a private document concerning a certificate of fact.

5. The Defendant was aware of the forgery at the time and place specified in Paragraph 2, and at the same time and place, that the “the circumstantial statement of the principal driver” forged as prescribed in Paragraph 4 was duly established.