If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On May 11, 2012, the Defendant drawn up a false complaint with respect to C at the Suwon-si Police Station in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, 873-4, Suwon-si, Seoul, with a false complaint with respect to C.

The written complaint states that "A, who is the defendant, has forged a real estate lease contract under the name of the complainant, has so punished." In fact, the above real estate lease contract entered the address of the defendant in the location of the real estate in the location of the defendant and C, and C entered the remaining matters in the name of the defendant, so C did not have forged the above real estate lease contract.

Nevertheless, on May 11, 2012, the defendant submitted a written complaint to the police officer under his/her name in the above police station for the purpose of having C be subject to criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Each police officer and each prosecutor's interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. A copy of an appraisal report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to filing a complaint or a copy of real estate lease agreement;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act and Article 156 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant prepared in advance the part of the “place” column of the “place” of the instant lease agreement, but since C brought about the said lease agreement from the beginning, and arbitrarily prepared the remainder and forged the instant lease agreement, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have rejected C.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, namely, that there exists a result of appraisal by the National Scientific Investigation and Research Institute to the effect that the entry of the “location” portion of the instant lease agreement is identical to the Defendant’s writing, and the Defendant did not first prepare the “location” portion of the instant lease agreement, and subsequently, recorded the investigation record.