logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.02.11 2014고정1062
무고
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 17, 2013, the defendant prepared a false complaint against D using a computer at the office located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Mapo-gu.

A written complaint contains the content or fact that "A person who is the defendant D forged one copy of the written agreement under the name of the complainant and applied for a payment order against the complainant on or around January 2013, which led to the introduction of the said written agreement, and thus punished," and therefore, D did not have forged the written agreement under the name of the defendant since it was written with the consent of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant submitted the above written complaint to E at the Seoul Mapo Police Station's investigation and the Seoul Mapo Police Station's office in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the aim of having D receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. A protocol concerning suspect examination of D;

1. Copy of the complaint;

1. A copy of a sales contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police investigation reports (IC details);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 156 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and J did not confirm the amount of the obligation to be received, such as unpaid benefits and borrowed money, at the time of taking over K from F, G, etc. The Defendant asserted that, around September 2012, the instant agreement was drafted, and around September 2012, there was no reason for the Defendant to affix a dispute on the amount of the obligation between the Defendant and D, and thus, there was no reason for the Defendant to affix a seal on the said agreement, which unilaterally reflects D’s assertion. At the time, the Defendant, who was in charge of the legal affairs of the company, prepared a written agreement at will to have the corporate seal impression, and forged it by means of affixing the corporate seal impression, and then did not file

Modern 1 H, F,.

arrow