Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Criminal facts

Around February 25, 2013, the Defendant drafted a false complaint against E, who is a D employee, at the inside of the house of the suspect in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The complaint was that “Defendant E, the construction site of the F apartment at Jung-Eup on August 2012, 2012, divulged and stolen the 28 tons of steel bars owned by A (the market price shall be 27,780,000 won) from outside without permission, and thus punished.”

However, at the time, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint from G to the seller’s fraud by not paying part of the steel bars at the time. During the course of the investigation into the said fraud case, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against E by larceny in order to vindicate that it was stolen for the reason that the part of the steel bars not having been returned to the seller was stolen. The fact was that the Defendant agreed to move H and the steel bars, the president, and that E and the Defendant moved together, and that there was no theft of the said steel bars.

Nevertheless, around March 5, 2013, the defendant submitted a complaint stating the above false facts by mail to the public service center of the Si/Eup/Myeon Police Station located in Si/Madong-dong.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false accusation against E for the purpose of having the E receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution and the police interrogation protocol of the E;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Each investigation report and evidential materials attached thereto;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint, a copy of a standard contract for construction works, and a copy of reply;

1. The crime of this case is not committed by E without permission, since the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 156 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the selection of fines for negligence, and the defendant removed the iron bars together with E, and thus, the crime of this case is not committed by E. However, although the crime of this case is inferior, the defendant did not receive a refund of the steel bars from H after the removal of the said iron bars and did not communicate with E.