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

On March 3, 2016, the Defendant was used for business purposes around January 2015, 2015 in the Busan Pyeong-dong, Busan Pyeong-gu, Busan Pyeong-do, and the Defendant was used for business purposes on January 3, 2015.

C) The franchise was leased only through a vehicle, but the applicant voluntarily provided the foregoing vehicle as collateral and received the loan from an influent bond company, and submitted a complaint to the effect that “B is punished as embezzlement because it does not return the vehicle.” The applicant was present at the above police station and stated to the investigator in charge of investigating the case for the same purpose.

However, the facts were the defendant's patriotism relationship.

A false complaint was filed against B, who was not arranged after he was asked by B to the effect that the above franchise was offered as a security and the vehicle was offered as a security and the delivery of the above vehicle was approved, and the money problem was not adjusted.

As a result, the Defendant reported the above false facts with the aim of having the above Party B punished criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect B by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made against the defendant or D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

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

1. Articles 157, 153, and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to be mitigated by law;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act) (Article 62 (1) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1448, Apr. 2