On May 19, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Cheongju District Court on March 3, 2017, and completed the execution of the sentence at the official prison on March 3, 2017. On January 9, 2018, the Daejeon District Court sentenced the two years of imprisonment with prison labor for special assault, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 23, 2018.

On April 7, 2017, at C Hospital C located in Sejong-si B, the Defendant had kneee-come-come-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane-compane.

On November 30, 2017, the Defendant prepared a written complaint stating that “A defendant, around April 8, 2017, took the face of D with his/her hand and knee, did not have any knee, he/she reported to the police as the above fact, so D has made a false report to the police, so D would be punished for a false crime.” On December 12, 2017, the Defendant submitted the above written complaint to the public service center of the Sejong Police Station by mail.

Accordingly, the defendant had D without the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. Statement made by the police against the defendant;

1. Copy of the police statement made to D;

1. Copies of each complaint;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. A written complaint, each mail bag, and a written statement;

1. Application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for inquiry, such as reporting and criminal history;

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

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding concurrent crimes provided that the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his/her defense counsel in Article 39 Paragraph 1 of the same Act alleged that the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not exist since they did not assault D. Thus, in full view of each evidence duly adopted and investigated, D cannot be deemed to have any special reason to dismiss the defendant, and thus, the facts charged in this case is recognized.