2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's assertion and defense counsel confirmed whether the defendant was towed by the vehicle without a vehicle, but the police did not have been towed, and the defendant filed a theft report, and the defendant did not make a false report on theft.

3. According to the judgment below, internal investigation report (report on the discovery of a vehicle), the ledger of custody management and return of a license plate, and internal investigation report (report on internal investigation as to whether or not false reports have been made), the above vehicle was kept in custody on June 1, 2015 on the grounds of delinquency in the payment of fines for negligence, and around that time, the number plate was attached to the above vehicle, and the Defendant was aware that the fine for negligence was in arrears in relation to the above vehicle at the time when the Defendant reported the theft of the vehicle.

However, according to the witness D's legal statement, it is recognized that the defendant visited the police station located in the center of the Suwon Police Station on the day of the case and requested the police to assist because there was no vehicle, and the police confirmed the towing place of the vehicle, viewing and viewing of the vehicle at hand with the defendant, but the answer that the vehicle was not towed.

In light of these circumstances, it is recognized that the defendant filed a false theft report even though the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the report on occurrence (thief), the physical list of vehicle theft reports, the report on internal investigation (the report on the discovery of the vehicle), the detailed data on the vehicle on the stolen vehicle (explosion), the detailed data on the vehicle, the management and return register of the number plates kept in custody and return register, and the report on internal investigation (the report on false report)) is aware that the vehicle was not stolen.