On September 20, 2012, the Defendant prepared a false complaint with respect to C with the aim of having C receive criminal punishment in the first floor of the Yanananannam Police Station located in the Cheongdong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and C.

A written complaint states, “The Defendant removed the Defendant’s resident registration certificate or resident registration certificate of the Defendant C, which is the Defendant, and the Defendant C, in the ceiling on March 15, 2011, opened an Internet wire telephone number D ② Internet wire telephone number E ② Handphone F ④ Handphone G in the Defendant’s name without the Defendant’s consent,” and the facts are as follows: “The Defendant permitted C to use the Defendant’s name in filing an application for the establishment of the Internet telephone or cell phone.”

Nevertheless, on September 20, 2012, the defendant submitted the above complaint to the police officer who is not able to know his name in the Dong-dong Police Station civil petition office around 2012 and filed the complaint with C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. C Protocol concerning the prosecution and the examination of suspects of each police officer;

1. Application for establishment, investigation report (general, evidence list Nos. 7), and each reply (Evidence List Nos. 10, 12);

1. Entry in a complaint and application of existing Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the charge of the crime, Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 156 of the Criminal Act, and Article 156 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not allow C to use the name of the Defendant in filing an application for the establishment of Internet wire or telephone, television, and cellphones, and thus, C’s accusation of the charge of forging

On June 2012, the Defendant was aware of the illegal use of the name of C in relation to the process of filing a complaint against C with the charge of forging private document, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that C had subscribed to service goods, such as mobile phones, Internet, TV, etc. in the name of the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant was attached to the application for joining the aforementioned mobile phone.