However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Around December 17, 2013, the Defendant drafted a false complaint against D and E at his own house located in Gohap-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

The complaint was the content that "the defendant defendant D and E suffered from bodily injury because they suffered from bodily injury on December 13, 2013."

However, facts D and E did not cause any injury or injury to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant submitted a written diagnosis of injury to employees in charge at the public service center of the Gohap Police Station in 63 in the center of the Gohap-Seoul Special Metropolitan City in the same day and submitted a written diagnosis of injury to the employees in charge, such as the above complaint and the dynasium, which require treatment for two weeks.

On May 15, 2014, the Defendant made a statement to the police officer F at the police station on the 23th of the same month to the effect that “E gets injured by the police officer’s flabation and flabing with D’s internal arms and pushing together with E”, and that he suffered injury by the police officer’s flabation with E, and that on May 15, 2014, the Defendant made a statement to the police officer G at the prosecutors’ office located in the Changwon-si District Prosecutors’ Office located in the 669 Changwon-gu, Changwon-si.

In this respect, the defendant was arrested for the purpose of having D and E receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. The statements made by witnesses E and D in the second trial records;

1. The statements of witnesses H and I in the third protocol of trial;

1. Investigation report (a copy of a service log at the time of mobilization of the police box);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation and statement;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act as to the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's complaint is not false since it was true that the defendant's complaint was caused by the combination of D and E with the defendant, and that the defendant's complaint was not false.

According to the above evidence, the following circumstances can be considered as a whole.