A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 20, 2017, the Defendant submitted a written complaint stating that “B opened and used a mobile phone under the name of her own permission or consent,” at the permanent police station located at around 82, a permanent permanent residence No. 33, a 82-odoned on July 20, 2017. On August 3, 2017, the Defendant stated that “B and D employees conspired to forge A’s application for subscription to a mobile phone and opened a mobile phone after forging A’s application for subscription to the mobile phone in collusion.” However, the Defendant not only issued the Defendant’s resident registration certificate with the Defendant’s name, but also obtained from E the phone verifying whether he/she consented to the opening of the mobile phone.”

Nevertheless, the defendant reported false facts to investigation agencies for the purpose of having B and E punished criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness B, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a new service contract, a short-term contract, or an application for a discount system;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that B did not report false facts, since B did not obtain the defendant's consent while preparing a mobile phone subscription application for the opening of the mobile phone in the name of the defendant, and E did not confirm the defendant's consent by telephone.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the fact that the defendant allowed B to open the cellular phone in the name of the defendant, and E’s cell phone phone.