When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the owner of the building B in Seoul Jung-gu, and the victim C is the constructor of the building.

On September 29, 2017, the Defendant added 130,100,000 won (one 50,000 won check, six 1,000 won note, 17,000 won in cash, and 4 million won in cash) to the victim at the Chinese house near the above building.

Nevertheless, on October 13, 2017, the Defendant, at the Seoul Northern District Court located in Dobong-gu Seoul, Seoul, 749, filed a false peremptory notice to the said Seoul Northern District Court to exercise the right to a check equivalent to 60 million won. However, on October 20, 2017, the Defendant withdrawn the said application and subsequently attempted to commit the same.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of the police against the accused (including part concerning the C¡¯s statement);

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Investigation report (verification of the details of the relevant case);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that a copy of the register of the building attached to the complaint, a certified copy of the land register, a standard contract for construction works, specifications, promissory note processing certificate, and a check reported on loss [the defendant and his defense counsel paid 130,100,000 won to the victim with the check, etc. of this case, the original copy of the contract for construction works was returned from the injured party, and if the original contract is not returned, the report on loss of the check of this case was filed in accordance with the agreement that the report on

However, the injured party received the check, etc. in advance and returned the original copy of the construction contract as agreed upon by the accused, but the accused filed a false report of loss with the suspicion of forgery. Thus, the act of the accused cannot be deemed an act according to the agreement, and the defendant's act of filing a peremptory notice based on the false report of loss can be permitted in light of social norms.