The defendant shall be innocent.

However, the court below denied the admissibility of the interrogation protocol and the statement of evidence prepared by the police in relation to E, but found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the following facts: E's change of evidence confirmed by the defendant's defense counsel is high credibility and credibility is high, and it is found guilty.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On June 12, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 22:13, 2017, the Defendant reported to the effect that “E was subject to intimidation,” by phoneing to 112 at the Defendant’s residence in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant residence”); and (b) around 01:50 on June 13, 2017, the Defendant stated to the effect that “E was raped by: (a) the police officer affiliated with the said police station “E was waiting for his/her own seat; (b) he/she attempted to commit rape by leading the Defendant, leading him/her to his/her invasion; and (c) led him/her to his/her panty, leading him/her to his/her invasion; and (d) attempted to see and her knick.”

However, in fact, E and the defendant were aware of the passwords so that they can freely enter the defendant's residence, and they did not commit rape or intimidation with the defendant's house because they are likely to harm himself.

Accordingly, the defendant reported false facts to public officials for the purpose of having them receive criminal punishment against E.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not agree to the interrogation protocol of the police preparation of E and the statement of the police preparation of E as evidence, and that E is a Chinese national, and its entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea is frequent.