beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On April 23, 2013, the Defendant driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of 0.085% without obtaining a driver’s license in approximately 500 meters from the center of the Government Dong-dong at Jung-si to 23:00 on the same day from 22:50 on April 23, 2013, the Defendant driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of 0.085%, without obtaining a driver’s license in the 500-meter radius from the center of the Government Dong-dong at Jung-si to 502-1 on the same day.
2. When the Defendant violated the Resident Registration Act, at the time and place stated in paragraph (1) above, and at the time and place, the Defendant controlled the Defendant’s resident registration number (E) without obtaining D’s permission.
Accordingly, the defendant used another person's resident registration number unlawfully.
3. The Defendant, at the same time and place as described in paragraph (1) above, stated the driver’s report prepared by the above C as “D” in the lower part of the driver’s report, with the color pen as “D” and affixed obstacles to the Defendant.
Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one copy of the report on the state-employed driver status in the name of D, a private document related to the certification of fact.
In other words, it was also exercised by delivering it to the above C as if it was duly formed.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A report on the actual state of the driver;
1. Report on detection of a host driver, and report on the status of a host driver;
1. Application of the statutes on the register of driver's licenses;
1. The prosecutor under Article 148-2 (2) 3 of the Road Traffic Act as to the crime was prosecuted on the basis of the rate under Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act. However, the prosecutor appears to be a clerical error under Article 148-2 (2) 3 of the Road Traffic Act, and the facts charged themselves are the same and there is no risk of causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense. Thus
Article 44 (1) (the point of a sound driving),