However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) prepared a false complaint stating that “Around January 2013, the Defendant issued a sales contract to the complainant by stating that he/she would sell units of Nos. 101, 102, 103, and 104 of the D Building 101, 102, 103, and 104, in order to have C receive a criminal disposition; and (b) submitted a false complaint to the public service center of the Mapo-dong Police Station around February 27, 2014 that “Around February 27, 2014, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 943,80,00 by arbitrarily disposing of the above loans 4 loans.”

However, on January 2013, the defendant issued the above sales contract by requesting C to prepare the construction cost by borrowing money from the members of C using the above sales contract. There was no fact that C used the above 4 loans or acquired property profits.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not file a false complaint with the above C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Statutory mitigation under Articles 157, 153, and 55 (1) 3 (i.e., mitigation of confession);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] Type 1 (General Non-competence) (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act), the area of mitigation (Article 1 to 1 (Special Mitigation) (Article 62) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution), self-denunciation and confession (Article 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor), the suspension of execution