except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

After the completion of the aggregate extraction project with D, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming settlement of expenses incurred in the aggregate extraction site on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant had been willing to prepare and submit a false complaint stating that D would be punished because D would be his/her own ownership.

However, in fact, since the Defendant and D paid 100 million won of the money deposited in the name of E Co., Ltd. (Representative Director D) prior to the business of collecting aggregate, it is reasonable to return the money deposited to D. The Defendant borrowed KRW 150 million from F, a seller of aggregate, or disposed of the money deposited in the name of F, for the restoration of construction works. Since the Defendant did not have any right to the said deposit, the Defendant did not have any right to the said deposit, and that D received the deposit in the name of the head of Tong Co., Ltd., by returning the money, and there was no fact that D paid the deposit money.

Nevertheless, around August 17, 2011, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Gwangju Dong-gu, prepared a false complaint to the effect that “D, while running a business with a license for E company operated by D to conduct aggregate extraction business in the Jeonnam-gu, it borrowed money from F to offset the F with the purpose of having it deposited KRW 150 million in the name of E Co., Ltd., by borrowing money from F, and then depositing KRW 150 million in the name of E Co., Ltd., it was owned by B, but D arbitrarily collected the money, and submitted it to the Gwangju Dong-dong Police Station located in the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City on the same day.”

40 80 80

1. Statements made by witnesses D and F in the third and sixth trial records;

1. D and F among the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant against the prosecution.