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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the representative director of the Company B on August 30, 2013, was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of 8 months for the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc., and was dismissed from the representative director of the said Company on the grounds of the above occupational embezzlement.

The defendant, appointed as a temporary representative director of the above company, filed a complaint against the defendant for the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc., and filed a complaint against the fact that there was a dispute about whether the defendant's representative director was maintained, and C had C receive criminal punishment.

On December 2016, the defendant prepared a false complaint against C using a computer in the dwelling area of the defendant in Thai-si D, Thai-si.

On February 21, 2013, “C” forged a written confirmation under the name of the Defendant and E to the effect that the Defendant is dismissed from office as the representative director of the Company B, and submitted it to the effect that it was exercised by submitting it as evidence of the case, which is punished. The content or fact confirmation is different. The F, the Defendant’s spouse, requested E to prepare it, and E was signed accordingly, and C did not have forged the said written confirmation, and the Defendant was well aware at the time when the F requested E to sign.

Nevertheless, on December 22, 2016, the defendant submitted the above written complaint to the public service offices of the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor's Office located in the Young-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Gangwon-do.

As a result, the defendant was arrested for the purpose of having C receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, E, and G;

1. A written appeal;

1. A copy of the written confirmation on February 21, 2013;

1. The defendant alleged that the contents of the complaint were not false since they were true, but the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court.