The gist of the complaint is that the defendant C, who is the defendant, has committed a crime, such as taking away the case data kept in the confidential domains of the principal (defendants) and making a multiple false accusation, etc., so that C, who is the defendant, has committed a crime.

However, in fact, since the defendant was set up for public perusal of the above Eul's general delivery, it was clearly known that the above C did not fully cut off the above materials.

On February 17, 2011, the Defendant submitted the above written complaint to the employee in charge who is unable to know his name at the public service center of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office located in the new Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office.

Judgment

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion in the facts charged (hereinafter “this case’s data room”) is not set to be open to the public for perusal by the general public, and C did not report false facts nor did it have any awareness or intent to report false facts.

2. First of all, as indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant set up a public disclosure of the instant data room to allow the public to peruse the general delivery, and as such, C is considered to have clearly known the fact that the data of the instant data room was missing.

Witness

C’s legal statement, the statement of the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, the inquiry reply to the fact-finding regarding the following communication companies, the submission of investigation report (Dcarf materials) and accompanying documents are acknowledged as follows (1) through (4) in light of the same circumstances, C shall be the Defendant.