1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around May 2008, the Plaintiff was accused of a complaint (hereinafter “instant complaint”) from Defendant C, D, D, E, and F (hereinafter “offenders”). The investigation was initiated upon the above complaint, and “the Plaintiff refused C’s request for withdrawal from the office around February 2006 and refused C’s request for withdrawal.” Around February 2, 2006, the Plaintiff was indicted of violating the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, such as receiving money from the Defendant, C, D, and E in return for preparing documents related to the lawsuit, and committing indecent act by force.”

B. On June 3, 2009, the Plaintiff was convicted of the charge of indecent act by compulsion, non-compliance with withdrawal, and violation of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act in Daejeon District Court Decision 2008 Godan4207, 2009 Godan120 (Joint).

Accordingly, on September 4, 2009, the plaintiff appealed to Daejeon District Court 2009No1467 and rendered a judgment of not guilty on the part concerning non-compliance with the withdrawal from among each of the above crimes by the above appellate court, and was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal on the remaining charges of indecent act by force and the violation of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act.

On this issue, the prosecutor appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9606), but on December 24, 2009, the judgment dismissing the appeal was pronounced.

C. The Plaintiff filed a false complaint with the remaining complainant, and filed a false complaint against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant appeared as a witness in the first instance trial of the criminal case against the Plaintiff and testified against memory. However, the prosecutor filed a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on the ground that “The Defendant filed a false complaint with C, etc., but the prosecutor did not have any accusation against the refusal of eviction as shown in the protocol of statement for supplement of the complaint prepared by the Daejeon Central Police Station around June 30, 2008. In addition, the Defendant testified to the effect that “the Defendant did not have been on his job” in relation to the refusal of eviction, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory.”

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;