A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

Around March 12, 2015, the Defendant had the said attorney-at-law (hereinafter referred to as “D”) file a complaint with the said attorney on April 6, 2016, to the effect that “A had the Defendant take drugs, such as anesthesia, into a married state on the part of the Defendant, and had the Defendant take the her body into a rape, and had the Defendant take the her body into custody, and subsequently, had the Defendant informed the Defendant’s family of the rape, and had the Defendant receive it to the said police station on six occasions more than six occasions from March 20, 2015, by threatening the Defendant’s family members to inform the Defendant of the rape. Accordingly, the Defendant withdrawn from the Defendant to June 26, 2015.”

However, in fact, the defendant had sexual intercourses under the agreement with the above D and had not been raped or threatened with D under the influence of drugs.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not have the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Details of the recovery of DNA mobile phone messages;

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

1. Relevant Article 156 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act impedes the State’s appropriate exercise of the criminal justice or disciplinary authority due to the Defendant’s false accusation of the facts, causing waste of investigative power, and the accused was at risk of being investigated by an investigative agency due to the Defendant’s criminal act in this case, and resulting in considerable mental suffering. On the other hand, the Defendant lent money to the victim after sexual intercourse with the victim, and the Defendant did not receive it up to now, and thus, the Defendant suffered economic damage due to the victim, and the victim was the Defendant.