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

On May 11, 2016, the Defendant drafted a false complaint against C with the aim of having C receive criminal punishment, at the police station of the port north-gu, 331, the center of the north-gu, Ma-si, and at having C receive criminal punishment.

The complaint of the defendant C was the content that "A, the defendant of the defendant of the lawsuit, was punished for C because he/she sustained a smuggling from the right without any reason, because he/she was moving a rice distribution unit from the first floor D located in the port mail concentration center in the North-gu, the North-gu, the North-gu, the port of port of port on May 3, 2016."

However, in fact C did not know the defendant as above.

Nevertheless, on May 11, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written complaint to the police officer in charge who is unable to know his/her name at the police station in the North Korea Coast Guard in the above port and filed the complaint with C, stating the aforementioned false details.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C by the police;

1. Statement made by the police against the defendant;

1. Complaint;

1. Results of inquiries and replies to E hospitals;

1. CCTV video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (based on CCTV analysis inside a waterway workshop);

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 156 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the defendant actually suffered an injury on the hurfy by the hurfy that the victim was brued at the time of the initial complaint, but it is true that the victim was fluent by the defendant, but the victim was fluent by the defendant. Thus, the crime of non

2. Examining CCTV images as to whether the Defendant suffered injury from the victim, the Defendant is only able to observe the fact that the Defendant was left from the sofet with one hand of the rice booming the Defendant, which led to which the Defendant did not flow away from the sofet, and that the Defendant did not seem to have any inconvenience at the same time with his/her work or pass, and the Defendant was only able to do so.