Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 20 days shall be applied.

On April 17, 2017, the Defendant submitted a false complaint to the Busan East Sea Center located in 359, as the World Cup in Busan East-gu, Busan, to the effect that “The defendant C, who is the defendant, has inflicted sexual assault on the complainant on March 4, 2017,” and received the above complaint report from the Busan B, which was located in 665, as the Busan, B, and then made a supplementary statement to the effect that “The defendant C, the defendant, was punished for assaulting the complainant on March 4, 2017.” On the same day, at the Busan, the Busan, East Sea Center, made a supplementary statement to supplement the false statement to D, with the same purport.

However, in fact, the defendant had sexual intercourse with C on March 4, 2017 under the agreement with C, but did not lend money to C, thereby making a false complaint.

As a result, the defendant reported false facts to C in the Busan Flag's entrance for the purpose of having C receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against the defendant;

1. A criminal investigation report (as to attachment of contents of the Kakao Stockholm conversation), a criminal investigation report (as to attachment of recording records), and a criminal investigation report (as to a request for closure of the case);

1. A copy of output of the mobile analysis data related to the case;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, despite the defendant's refusal intention on March 4, 2017, the defendant's sexual intercourse with the defendant was not reported false facts.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① consistently from the investigative agency to the present court, stating that “A had a sexual intercourse at the time of making contact with the Defendant on March 4, 2017, and did not have a sexual intercourse against the victim’s will even enter the telecom,” and that “A was unable to have a sexual intercourse against the victim’s will.” The circumstances leading up to the interview of the Defendant, the conversation between the Defendant and the Defendant following sexual relationship, and the Defendant.