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

On November 2013, 2013, the Defendant prepared a false complaint against D through the Defendant Company’s name-free employees at the Defendant’s office located in Songpa-gu Seoul Ctel 1507.

A written complaint was the content that “the Defendant, from July 11, 2012 to August 24, 2012, threatened the Defendant with an appearance of KRW 26,00,000,000 by threatening the Defendant from July 1, 201 to August 24, 2012.”

However, in relation to the creation of the above housing site, the Defendant paid KRW 26,000,00 to the Defendant’s wife and E, who had obtained written consent from the members and performed a general meeting with the “expenses for business cooperation related to the general meeting of the members.” There was no fact that the Defendant did not receive money by assault or intimidation against the Defendant.

Nevertheless, on November 6, 2013, the defendant submitted the above written complaint to the staff of the police station who is unable to know his name in the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government civil petition office for the police station located within the nature of Gangdong-gu in Gangdong-gu.

In this respect, the defendant was arrested for the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Copy of the protocol concerning the examination of the accused;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a complaint, receipt, investigation report (Attachment of materials submitted by a suspect), list of members with written confirmation and official document, official document, transfer, transferee confirmation document, and written confirmation;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended execution refers to the following facts: (a) even though D was actually paid 26 million won by the Defendant due to business cooperation expenses, etc., the Defendant and the Association of Housing Site Development Projects, on the ground that convenience was considered in the process of concluding an agency contract between the Defendant and the Association of Housing Site Development Projects.