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

On October 25, 2016, the Defendant drafted a complaint against C using a see pension in the Cheongong Police Station located one-way way in the Cheongong-gun, Cheongong-gun, Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

On September 2014, C arbitrarily prepared a written consent to abolish the use of state property under the name of the defendant, a written consent to abolish the use of state property, and a written consent to abolish the use after the abolition of the use, and forged and used it.

‘ was the same.'

However, the fact is that C prepared by granting prior permission to prepare a written consent to abolish the use of the state property under his/her name, and since the written consent and the written application under the defendant's name were directly prepared by C, C did not have prepared the above documents at his/her discretion.

Nevertheless, the defendant submitted the above complaint to the civil petition officer in charge of civil petition affairs at the public service center of the Dongong Police Station on the same day.

As a result, the defendant made a false accusation for the purpose of having C receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint and a report on investigation (Attachment to documents submitted by a complainant);

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 156 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The assertion and judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the costs of lawsuit

1. The alleged defendant did not have a false perception of the facts of the complaint, and thus did not have an intention to make a false accusation.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of each of the above evidence duly admitted, it can be sufficiently recognized that C gave consent to the Defendant to prepare a written consent to abolish the use of state property and, even if C directly affixed the written consent to abolish the use of state property after the abolition of the use, the false content of C’s refusal of use was stated in the written consent to the closure of the use of state property.