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

On July 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) drafted a written complaint to the Seocho-gu Police Station of Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, to the effect that “The complainant (Defendant) who was employed as an employee was forced to engage in a similar act by force, such as forcing C to put C’s sexual organ immediately; and (b) received the written complaint to the High Police Station of Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, on July 8, 2016; (c) continued to be investigated as the complainant’s status at the Police Station of Daejeon, Daejeon, the Defendant received the written complaint from the High Police Station of Daejeon, Daejeon, and (d) continued to do so from January 2016 to February 2016.

In spite of their strong refusal, C made a statement to the effect that C exceeded panty and panty, lying its head on both hand, and putting it on the chest, and putting it into a spande, and putting it on the breast, and putting it into a spande.”

However, on May 2015, the Defendant, through a marriage information company, was in a tobacco relationship after the Defendant met C, and at the static point, it was soon decided that C was a child under the agreement with C, but C was not forced.

Nevertheless, the defendant prepared a complaint to the effect that he was forced to act of similarity as above, submitted it to the investigation agency, and made a statement to the same effect.

In this respect, the defendant made a false accusation for the purpose of having C receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of C by the prosecution;

1. A criminal investigation report (CCTV image analysis report) [the defendant's defense counsel did not file a false accusation, but argued that the circumstance is unreasonable when the defendant was exaggerated on the basis of facts. However, according to the evidence above, the defendant's act of similarity with C even though he did not act of similarity with C according to the agreement with C.

Then, it cannot be viewed as an exaggeration of the circumstances only. Thus, the defendant and defense counsel's argument is without merit.