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

1. Around 06:00 on June 29, 2013, the Defendant was driving CK5 cars in the 2km section from the front side to the university Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-dong University, Jongno-gu, Seoul, without obtaining a driving license under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.192%.

2. On June 29, 2013, around 06:39, the Defendant: (a) discovered a drinking control on the front day of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Yungdong 427-9, and made a report on the state of the drinking driver; (b) stated the name, etc. of the “D” in the driver column of the above report; and (c) stated the said report to the police officer who may know such circumstance, as if the said report was duly made.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged the report on the state of his driver under the name of D, and exercised the forged document.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on the statement of the situation of a driver;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (2) 2, Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 152, Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, despite the fact that the defendant had been sentenced to a fine twice due to drinking driving, the nature of the crime of this case is not somewhat weak in light of the fact that he/she again commits the crime of this case, but the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime of this case and reflects it, and that the defendant has no record of being punished in excess of a fine.