On December 31, 2012, the Defendant made a complaint to the public service center of the Ansan Police Station located in Ansan-si, 1586, Ansan-dong, 1586, and submitted to the said police station a written complaint stating the following purport: “E made several instances of telephone communications in the United States with a family member after having been employed by the Defendant, and made several times of telephone communications with the Defendant love that he would leave the United States without night, from the beginning of 2 to April, 2012, and made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant made a telephone communications once a short time, and made a long call, thereby impairing the Defendant’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.”

However, the Defendant made a telephone conversation with the above contents to E.

As a result, the Defendant reported false facts to public offices for the purpose of having them punished.

However, the Defendant denies the facts charged by consistently asserting that “I do not have any telephone conversations with the same content as the facts charged to E” from the investigative agency to the court.

In light of the following circumstances that can be known through the recording and witness E’s legal statement, even if E was given telephone conversations with the content of the charge on December 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant telephone conversation”) and the sender was assumed to have been aware of the Defendant, such as the said statement, even if it was assumed that the sender was the Defendant, a written appraisal [the Korea National Science Investigation and Investigation Institute assessed to the effect that “the voice recorded on January 12, 2013, is presumed to have shown the characteristics that are common to the Defendant’s voice among the contents recorded,” and that “the Defendant is presumed to have shown the same person’s voice,” which supported its credibility, with only the witness F’s legal statement supporting its credibility, it is difficult to readily conclude that the sender of the instant telephone is the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.”