Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
On December 19, 2014, the Defendant, at the office of the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, made a complaint stating false information that “E, the Defendant, at around February 4, 2011, by requesting a nameless administrative secretary to borrow money from the complainant and deceiving him/her to prepare a certificate of borrowing and a certificate of performance by deceiving him/her to do so by borrowing money from the complainant, and by deceiving him/her to do so through money exchange, the Defendant issued it, by deceiving him/her, and by deceiving him/her to do so.”
However, the fact was that the defendant lent 40 million won to E, and it was delivered to E by himself a certificate of borrowing and a certificate of performance and a certificate of performance in order to secure his ability to repay.
Nevertheless, on December 19, 2014, the defendant received the above complaint from the police officer who is unable to know his name at the general civil petition office of the Dongdaemun-gu Police Station.
Accordingly, the defendant was dismissed for the purpose of having E receive criminal disposition.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of witness E;
1. The prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including E statements);
1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the contents of the complaint in this case do not constitute a false accusation since it is true that E does not return to the defendant after receiving a loan certificate and a foreign currency from the defendant.
According to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant requested E to lend KRW 40 million on February 4, 201, and prepared and delivered a certificate of borrowing, etc. and delivered a foreign currency. On the other hand, the contents of the complaint submitted by the defendant are that E lend money from his/her friendship and exchange foreign currency, etc. by making a false statement that E will exchange foreign currency. Therefore, in light of the difference between these facts and the contents of the complaint, it is recognized that the defendant acquired the certificate of borrowing and the foreign currency, etc.