The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant operates D Co., Ltd. with 425 of the former C Building during the period of Ansan.

On March 30, 2011, at around 21:26, the Defendant: (a) discovered a Flus vehicle parked by the victim E (the age of 42) who was a resident at the second floor parking lot of the above C underground, with a view to discovering the Flus vehicle parked, (b) walking the front and rear diameter of the vehicle, and (c) continued to have a knife in front of the driver's seat of the vehicle with the non-owned tool.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim E's front laps of the car at the victim E's 694,00 won of the repair cost.

B. On May 2, 2011, the Defendant submitted a written complaint to the police officer who is unable to know his/her name at the civil petition office of the police station during the period of Gyeyang-gu.

The content of the written complaint was that “A, despite the absence of the fact that the complainant damaged the FOsp car owned by the Defendant E, the Defendant E, the Defendant E reported the damage of the Osp car caused by the Gu C Building Parking Lot on March 30, 2011 to the police for the purpose of criminal punishment by deeming the complainant to be the offender, and thereby impairing the honor by requesting the complainant to be selected as the offender at the above parking lot.”

However, the fact that the defendant returned to the Republic of Korea on March 30, 201, when he had been suffering from the religion of E as a problem of parking, he found the above E vehicle and damaged the wheels and the wheeler in the same way as the paragraph (a).

As a result, the defendant reported false facts to the above E with the aim of having the above E subject to criminal punishment.

2. The judgment prosecutor is the issue of this case as to whether the defendant has damaged the E-owned vehicle, since he/she was prosecuted for the crime of causing property damage and without accusation on the premise that the defendant has damaged the E-owned vehicle.

The above issues.