A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On January 2018, the Defendant prepared a false complaint against D using computers at the law firm C office located in the building in the Subdivision-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

A written complaint stating that "The defendant D, on August 12, 2014, forged the real estate lease contract in the name of E and exercised it to the complainant on or around January 26, 2015," and that "D did not forge the above lease contract, and the defendant was aware of the fact that it confirmed the above lease contract while entering into a partnership contract with D.

Nevertheless, around February 9, 2018, the defendant submitted the above written complaint to the investigator in the name in the public service center of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office located in 451 according to the sansansung-si, Manam-si.

In this respect, the defendant was arrested for the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Examination of suspect suspect regarding D by the prosecution;

1. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, E is the auditor of the company H, the defendant and D engaged in the same business, the defendant was in a position to verify the lease agreement at the time of the above establishment and business registration of the company, and the defendant demanded D to enter into the instant lease agreement with D first at the time of the preparation of D and the Notarial Deed (Evidence No. 69 of the evidence record), the defendant was in a position to verify the lease agreement (Evidence No. 69 of the evidence record), the circumstances leading up to the operation of D with D, the contents of the business, the personal relations of E and D, and the defendant did not dispose of the claims to return the lease deposit of this case.