[B] On December 29, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (mariju) at the Seoul Eastern District Court on December 29, 201 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Chuncheon Prison on December 6, 201.

On June 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 for the repair cost on the ground of criminal facts stating, “A around 18:40 on May 1, 2012, sent to C’s cell phone on the ground that the Defendant parked a car at a place where C was on the street and interfered with funeral, but the contact was not made; (b) the front-hander of the vehicle is walking once due to the fact that the contact was not made; and (c) the Defendant was taken on the roof of the said vehicle, and damaged the said vehicle to have the roof of the said vehicle.” (d) received a summary order of KRW 962,984 for the summary order of KRW 1,00,000 for a formal trial on September 10, 2012, then withdrawn the Defendant’s request for formal trial on October 5, 2012.

Nevertheless, upon receiving criminal punishment as above, the Defendant intentionally destroyed C’s roof for the purpose of having C receive criminal punishment or insurance money, with intent to file a false complaint.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 8, 2014, the Defendant prepared a false complaint against C in Chuncheon prison, located in the new village-ro 5, the New village-ro 5, Chuncheon-si, and the false complaint against C.

A written complaint contains the fact that the complainant was sent to the fronter of the vehicle parked by C at around 18:40 on May 1, 2012, and was going on the roof of the vehicle. However, even if the vehicle did not show a strings of the vehicle, C intentionally moved the vehicle to another place and reported the vehicle for the purpose of having the complainant punished for property damage or receiving insurance money. Thus, C filed a false report for the purpose of having the complainant receive property damage or receiving property damage.

However, in fact, the defendant was operated by C.