Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for four months, for each of the defendants B.

(2) the date of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A’s without accusation (2014 highest 1900) was awarded a contract for the new construction of the building of the building with the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and the construction was carried out by subcontracting part of the said construction work to G. However, the owner of the building did not bring about the Defendant’s profit at the wind of directly paying the construction cost to G by the subcontractor, and the owner of the building did not bring about the Defendant’s profit, so that E and G would be subject to criminal punishment, he did not file a false complaint stating that “E and G forged a construction work subcontracting contract.”

(2) On February 12, 201, the Defendant entered into a subcontract agreement with G and construction works in the “Contract Price column” (127 square meters) at a construction site office located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and entered the Defendant into a contract with G, with the Defendant, with the name and seal the Defendant’s name and affix his/her seal on the “Area 180,000 square meters (Won 180,000 square meters)” in the “Price 50% of the construction cost within one day after installing a concrete with the second floor,” stating that “The construction standard subcontract contract with the second floor shall be paid in cash within one day after installing a concrete with the second floor.”

Nevertheless, on May 6, 2013, the Defendant submitted a written complaint to the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office of the Cheongju-dong, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, with the false content that "The punishment for forging a subcontract agreement was made by collusion with the E and forging." On May 13, 2013, the Defendant received an investigation as a complainant at the police station investigation and office equivalent to the Cheongju-si, and the police officer in charge used the name of the Defendant's G and the suspect as an illegal act under the standard subcontract agreement for construction works on February 12, 2011.

The author does not consent to this contract at all.

“A false statement was made.”

Then, on June 10, 2013, the Defendant is in charge of the investigation of the police station equivalent to the Cheongju.