Defendant 1 and two others

Kim Jong-Ba (Lawsuit) and Kim Jong-Gyeong (Trial)

Attorney Kim Sung-chul et al.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

In the event that the above fine is not paid by the Defendants, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 50,000 into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were married couple, and Defendant 3 (Defendant 1) is between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

Defendant 1 received a request from Defendant 3 (Defendant 1) to transfer his/her name because he/she is unable to register his/her business in his/her name because of bad credit standing problems from Defendant 3 (Defendant 1) and consented thereto, and Defendant 3 (Defendant 1) had Defendant 3 (Defendant 1) registered his/her construction business in his/her trade name as △△ enterprise on May 4, 2009.

After that, Defendant 1, who is only the nominal lender, continued to impose the additional tax on the business of the above △△ enterprise, the Defendants collected the business registration from Defendant 2 in the Dok Kin house located in the area of the Cheongju-si on December 4, 2009, and decided that Defendant 1 would file a false complaint with Defendant 3 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) by forging private documents, etc. as a means to change the name of Defendant 3 (In the name of Defendant 1: Defendant 1) as a means to change the business registration into the Dokin house located in the Dokin house located in the Dokdong-si, the Cheongju-si, the

On December 16, 2009, Defendant 1 prepared a written complaint to the effect that “Defendant 3 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) who is the defendant at the defendant defendant 1 without permission using the name of the defendant 1’s business operator, who is the complainant, forged the contract and entered into a contract with another company.” However, as seen above, Defendant 1 lent the name of Defendant 3 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) to Defendant 3 (party 1: Defendant 1) and thus, Defendant 3 (party 1) did not forge the contract under the defendant 1’s name.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 prepared a false complaint with the above contents and submitted the above complaint to the police officer who could not know his name at the seat and ordered Defendant 3 (Defendant 1) (Defendant 1).

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 3 (Defendant 1): Defendant 3 (Defendant 1) and 3 (Defendant 1) assisted Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to commit the crime by making a false answer to an investigation agency and making a false answer.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the examination of the suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 1 and the defendant 2;

1. Copy of the complaint;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: Article 156 of the Criminal Act; Selection of each fine

○ Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 1): Articles 156 and 32(1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

1. Mitigation of confession;

○ Defendants: Articles 157, 153, and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act

1. Aid and mitigation;

○ Defendant 3 (Defendant 1): Articles 32(2) and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendants: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the primary facts charged

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were married, and the Defendant is between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

Defendant 1 was unable to register his business in his name because of bad credit problems from the Defendant, and accepted the request by the Defendant to lend his name, and caused the Defendant to register his business in his trade name on May 4, 2009.

After that, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1, who are only the nominal lender, continued to impose the additional tax on the business of the above △△△ enterprise, decided to file a false complaint with Defendant 1 by means of fabrication of private documents, etc., as a means of gathering the business registration from Defendant 2, who is located in the area of Cheongju-si, a considerable area of Cheongju-si, on December 4, 2009, to change his business registration to the name of Defendant 2. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant prepared for answers to questions anticipated at the time of being investigated by the investigative agency.

On December 16, 2009, Defendant 1 prepared a written complaint to the effect that “Defendant 3 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) who is the defendant at the defendant defendant 1 without permission using the name of the defendant 1’s business operator, who is the complainant, forged the contract and entered into a contract with another company.” However, as such, Defendant 1 lent the name of the defendant to the above, so there was no forgery of the contract under the defendant 1’s name.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 prepared a false complaint with the above contents and submitted the above complaint to the police officer who could not know his name at the seat, and the defendant was dismissed.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to find the Defendant without prejudice.

2. Determination

The main facts charged are that the defendant's accusation constitutes one's own accusation with the content that the defendant himself/herself does not constitute an element of a crime of false accusation and does not constitute a crime of false accusation (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4852, Oct. 23, 2008).

Thus, since the above facts of the primary construction do not constitute a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting, which is the primary facts charged, it shall not be sentenced

Judges Shin Young-jin