A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

Around January 19, 2017, the Defendant prepared a false complaint with respect to C at the Defendant’s home located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, using a computer and printing equipment, etc. Around January 19, 2017, the Defendant made a false complaint with respect to C. The main purpose of the complaint is that “Defendant C is the president of the E sales outlet located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, and Defendant C is the president of the E sales outlet located in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and that Defendant C was punished under the charge of criminal punishment because he/she, around August 9, 2016, 200, she acted in an inevitable manner to the complainant who is a customer in his/her face with his/her face-to-face, taken by the complainant with his/her face-to-face face-to-face phone, and the victim’s left head was 1,056,000 won in a number of cell phones owned by the complainants.”

In addition, on January 19, 2017, the Defendant submitted the above written complaint to the public official in charge of receiving the written complaint at the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor's Office located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, as Mapo-gu, Seoul, and continuously made a supplementary statement by attending the prosecutor's office No. 509 of the above Public Prosecutor's Office on February 7, 2017, and on February 7, 2017, the Defendant got involved in the cell phone display site and the column several times, and thereby, caused the Defendant to not photograph the cell phone image on the cell phone screen of the mobile phone amount, and caused damage to mobile phones, such as causing misworking.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, on August 9, 2016, C did not face the Defendant’s mobile phone device at all times, and the Defendant used the Defendant’s mobile phone at all times on the day of the instant case, and on October 13, 2016, the Defendant asserted the color of the screen on the day of the instant case, and the Defendant was using the mobile phone at all times until he was refunded the carried phone.