Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 19, 2012, the Defendant filed a complaint with the public service center of the Daejeon Police Station in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, stating that “D, even though there was no intent to cancel the registration of provisional seizure established on the land in relation to the registration of the land and the provisional seizure established on the land and the building owned by the Defendant’s father, the Defendant, by deceiving the Defendant to cancel all of the above provisional seizure registration if he has repaid the obligation of KRW 65 million,000,000,000,000,000 won, out of KRW 13.5 million.”

However, there was no agreement between D and D with regard to the cancellation of the provisional attachment registration in the course of the cancellation of the provisional attachment registration established on the above land when the defendant requested D to cancel the provisional attachment registration on the building on the above land, and thereafter he was rejected, and D did not say that D would cancel all the above provisional attachment registration when he fully paid the defendant a debt of KRW 65 million, which is 13.5 million.

Nevertheless, the defendant, for the purpose of criminal punishment against D, submitted a false complaint to D, thereby making D unusable.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F, G, and H;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. The police statement of the defendant and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act and Article 156 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As for the reason of sentencing in Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant, at least at the time of the instant complaint, was fully aware that related persons, such as creditors F, I, H, and G, were aware of the provisional attachment registration established on the above land in relation to the above provisional attachment registration. Moreover, D was not a creditor, but did not engage in particular in the process of cancelling the provisional attachment registration.