The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Around March 24, 2012, the Defendant drafted a false complaint with respect to C and D at the office of a certified judicial scrivener near the Songpa-dong Seoul Songpa-gu Police Station located in 9, Songpa-gu, Seoul.

The written complaint was that “Defendant C and D conspired, and around 00:30 on March 8, 2012, the family head of Songpa-gu Seoul E-Babadong 101, the complainant, and the family head of A, the Defendant C, a drinking, took time to the complainant’s head and left side side, and the Defendant D, a man who is the Defendant, was injured by two parts, which require approximately 14-day treatment to the complainant, by cutting down and plpling the complainant’s right side,” and then causing injury to the complainant for about 14 days.”

However, the facts C and D did not jointly inflict any injury upon the defendant.

Nevertheless, on March 26, 2012, the defendant submitted the above written complaint to an employee whose name is not known at the public service center of the Seoul exists.

In this respect, the defendant made a false accusation against C and D for the purpose of having C and D punished criminal punishment.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel denied the fact that the Defendant was subject to assault around 00:0 on March 9, 2012 from C and D with respect to the facts charged of the instant case, and that the Defendant was merely aware of the date and time of the injury on March 8, 2012 at around 00:30.

In this regard, there are statements in investigative agencies, such as witnesses C and D, and in this court, as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case.

However, according to the records, as alleged by the defendant, around 00:30 on March 8, 2012, the date and time of the damage stated in the written complaint by the defendant, as claimed by the defendant, the next day after the occurrence of the situation near the same day, has gone beyond the self

3.9. 9. 00:30, there is sufficient probability that the Defendant made a statement by taking advantage of the franchisium, and, unlike the date and time of the above accusation, the Defendant suffered the instant injury at the time of investigation by the police.