However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a resident of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment complex (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) who served as the Dong representative of the said apartment on July 8, 2009 to serve as the resident of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment complex, and D is a person who served as the managing warden of the instant apartment from August 2009 to August 2009.

The Defendant stated the false fact that the head of the instant apartment management office embezzled management expenses from Seoul Western District Court from September 2009 to October 1, 200, in the neighborhood meeting of the apartment complex, etc., and was sentenced to a summary order of fine (total of KRW 1.8 million) three times due to the crime of assaulting the accounting staff of the management office and the occupants. The above fine was demanded to be paid on behalf of the head of the E and the head of the management office, who is the succeeding representative of the Defendant, on behalf of the head of the management office. However, it was rejected.

Thus, the defendant raised complaints against D, etc., and thereafter, around June 2010, while continuously asserting D, etc. as embezzlement of apartment public funds, the Mapo Police Station in Seoul Metropolitan City reported D, etc. as embezzlement of apartment public funds, the defendant tried to file a complaint that D embezzled the apartment management expenses, and that D would be subject to investigation as a result of mutual assault and assault on December 24, 2014.

On April 28, 2015, the Defendant submitted a complaint to the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor's Office to the effect that "(D) works as the managing complaint of the instant apartment from September 2009 to March 2015; (b) double payment of benefits; (c) deduction of the external revenue; and (d) embezzled the management fee of the apartment under the pretext of the maintenance cost not actually required."

However, D did not have committed the above improper act, and the defendant argued the general list of apartment management expenses as the basis of embezzlement, but it was obvious that this is not reasonable.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a false complaint with D for the purpose of criminal punishment, and brought a false complaint against D.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's person;