However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In the B convalescent, the Defendant served as a pharmacist from September 26, 2018 to October 19, 2018, and C is the president of the B convalescent.

On May 7, 2019, the Defendant, at the public service center of the Gyeonggi-gu Police Station of the Gyeonggi-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 311, 84, the 311-gil, on the floor of the Chocheon-si, Busan Special Metropolitan City, on May 7, 2019, the Defendant forged the labor contract prepared in his name in the C Pvalescent, although C had not forged

“The written complaint was submitted, and on May 9, 2019, C, the president of the D Institute, made a statement to the effect that he/she would be punished because he/she forged the name of the labor contract and the private person, at the investigation of the Jincheon-gu Police Station and the three team offices of the economy 3 team offices.

As a result, the defendant accused C of false facts with a view to having a criminal punishment imposed upon C.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of witness C and E;

1. A written appraisal prepared by the appraiser F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the statutes on labor contracts;

1. Relevant Article 156 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The assertion;

A. The Defendant did not sign a labor contract or give a private person a signature, and since the labor contract was forged, the Defendant did not report false facts.

B. Even if the signature and the private person stated in the labor contract are the writing of the defendant, the defendant was negligent in failing to observe his own written attitude, and did not make a false complaint knowing that the labor contract was made by the defendant.

2. Determination

(a) Whether or not a false fact has been reported (whether or not a labor contract has been forged) appraiser F, the name and penology of the labor contract and the name and penology of the substitute are highly likely to have been written by the same person, and the name and penology have been copied by another person;

(c).