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

The Defendant, at the Incheon International Public Port, was not good between C and workers of the same species who are carrying out the duties of transport of the call Ban, and C was fluent on the ground that there were several points of points about the Defendant’s unreasonable act of visitors.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant, at the D Administrative Office located in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, drafted a false complaint stating the purport that “C, which works as an article of the D Administrative Office, shall be subject to criminal punishment.” On November 21, 2015, in the Incheon International Airport, would threaten the complainants who want to carry out the reservation of call booms and verbal abuse, and booms down twice on the face of the complainants.”

Since then, on December 8, 2015, the defendant submitted a written complaint to the public prosecutor's office of Incheon District public prosecutor's office, and upon the commencement of the police investigation, C spits the spits submitted as evidence with false statements as evidence of spitsing spits. However, the above suspension was made only by the defendant, and C did not spits spits spits against the defendant.

As above, the Defendant submitted a false complaint and rejected C.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the second public trial date);

1. Protocols concerning the examination of suspect C by the prosecution or the police (including the statement of each of the accused);

1. Statement made by the police against the defendant;

1. Each chief executive or complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written request for appraisal;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 156 of the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 157, 153, and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to be mitigated by law;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (the following conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing) lies in the instant crime even though the Defendant had the same criminal history. In light of the motive and circumstance of the instant crime, the motive and circumstance of the instant crime, the Defendant’s accusation, not only was exposed to the risk of criminal punishment but also was consumed in unnecessary places by the investigative agency.