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

1. Around September 23, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint with the public service center of the Daejeon Police Station, which is located in 1417 od 11, Seodae-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, on the following occasions: “Around June 19, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint against C, stating that “A, the Defendant, who is the Defendant, prepared a loan-related document to A (the Defendant) that he/she borrowed three million won at a bank and borrowed it at the bank, and that C, the Defendant, who is the Defendant, was punished by arbitrarily borrowing KRW 10 million, not three million.”

However, the facts are that C merely received reimbursement from the Defendant because it has a claim equivalent to approximately KRW 10 million from the Defendant, and the Defendant, along with C around June 19, 2013, directly signed and sealed the loan documents for the above KRW 10 million on the loan documents to the MG Saemaul Fund located in the Daejeon Seo-gu New Carbon and Vibration. Therefore, C did not have any fact of deceiving the Defendant as stated in the above complaint documents at the time.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a false complaint with C for the purpose of having C punished criminal punishment.

2. On October 16, 2013, the Defendant attempted to commit fraud: (a) at the Daejeon District Court’s comprehensive civil petition office located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Court No. 78-ro 45, Seo-gu, Daejeon, the Defendant: (b) filed a complaint with the Defendant, stating that “A around June 19, 2013, Defendant C borrowed three million won at a bank from the Plaintiff (Defendant) to borrow and borrowed the loan-related documents; (c) the Defendant received at will a KRW 10 million from the bank; and (d) obtained a recommendation for performance as to the above KRW 10 million from the Daejeon District Court Decision No. 2013Ga92607, Oct. 16, 2013.

However, the fact was that the victim only received a repayment of the claim against the defendant as stated in Paragraph 1, and that he did not have obtained a loan of KRW 10 million by deceiving the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the court as above and receives a favorable judgment from the court.