On May 22, 2014, the Defendant submitted a written complaint to C at the public service center of the Gangnam Police Station, which was present as a witness of the Daegu District Court 2013Kadan6259 case, and made a supplementary statement at the economic team of the Gangnam Police Station on May 29, 2014. The purport of the complaint is that “C, a female employee of the Saemaeul Police Station, appeared as a witness of theless case and made an application for automatic transfer of the loan when the Defendant applied for the loan,” and thus, punished.

However, on October 13, 2010, the Defendant agreed to repay loans in installments by means of a community credit cooperative and automatic transfer, and accordingly, up to July 18, 201, the Defendant deposited the amount equivalent to the monthly principal and interest of loans into the community credit cooperative account in the name of the Defendant until July 18, 201.

Accordingly, the defendant was arrested by C to be subject to criminal punishment as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A copy of the examination record of witness;

1. Statement of the police statement of the defendant;

1. Complaints, loan consultation and applications, loan transaction agreements, documents evidencing the details of transactions by member accounts, Seo Youngcheon Saemaeul Saemaul Fund and details of transactions, and reports on cases by the Korea Consumer Agency;

1. Application of a copy of the judgment (109 pages of investigation records);

1. A complaint was filed with the purport that C had altered the loan agreement as if C applied for automatic transfer, even though the Defendant had not filed an application for automatic transfer of loans to C, under Article 156 of the relevant criminal facts, even though the Defendant did not file an application for automatic transfer of loans to C, and was indicted for anless accusation and sentenced to two years of suspended execution on May 16, 2014, which was sentenced to two years of suspended execution on May 22, 2014, and filed a complaint with C on May 22, 2014, which was only one week, and again did not go through C, the crime is deemed bad, not persuasive, and the Defendant was consistent with a vindication.