A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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 April 24, 2013, the Defendant prepared a false complaint with respect to C in the form of the complaint form in which it was located at the Daegu Women's School Violence Support Center.

The gist of this complaint is that "The defendant C, who is the defendant, was sexually abused a complainant who has lost his mind on April 5, 2012," and that "C was not quasi-rapeed and has a sexual intercourse with the complainant."

Nevertheless, the defendant submitted the above complaint to police officers who could not know their names at the above date, time, and place.

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 police interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Application for the draft of D;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (field search, investigation, restoration of CCTV video files, etc.);

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 156 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The gist of the argument, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, since the defendant was raped by C while under the influence of alcohol at the time, the defendant did not know that C had any fact.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, C, made a statement at an investigative agency that sexual intercourses with the Defendant two times with the Defendant, and made a considerable detailed and consistent statement about the situation at the time. ② On the contrary, the Defendant stated that the film was cut down while drinking in E head office, but, on the other hand, D, who worked in E head office, showed that the Defendant and C came to wear in head office and carried out h head office, carried out h head office and h head office, and the Defendant was not in a state of exploitation.