When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Around September 2013, the Defendant prepared a false complaint against E using a warranty protocol at the center of the Seoul Western Police Station located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Green-dong, for the purpose of having E, who is a pastor in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, subject to criminal punishment.

Around 20:54 on September 3, 2013, the above complaint statement "E, the defendant defendant defendant E, was in possession for the purpose of causing injury to the complainant A, and the parking lot shuts down the parking lot shuts down as follows, and continued to be in compliance with A's authorized interest on one occasion for the complainant's head at around 22:05 on the same day, and continued to be in line with the complainant's head at around 22:05 on one occasion for 14 days before the complainant."

However, the fact was that the defendant's head was dancing in a part of the blocking machine, and that E did not have any fact that the victim's head was separated from the blocking machine for the parking lot, thereby having the victim's head.

On September 6, 2013, the Defendant submitted a written complaint to police officers who cannot know their names in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Eunpyeong-ro 15-ro 9-h, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, the Seoul Western Police Station civil petition office, and submitted the written complaint to the Defendant E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness E;

1. Partial testimony of witness F;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Copy of the complaint;

1. Results of CCTV verification;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 156 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not have filed a false complaint since he/she actually operated the blocking machine on two occasions in fact so that he/she can meet the head of the defendant.

However, the Defendant asserted that: (a) at the prosecutor’s office, the Defendant directly saw that E would operate a compromise to get off at around 20:54 on September 3, 2013, but on September 3, 2013, around 20:54 on September 3, 2013.