Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 23, 2016, the Defendant reported around 23:24, 2016 to the effect that “A neighboring E, a neighbor, has broken the entrance glass during the dispute and putting a string of the glass view and threatening the death,” through D’s wife at the Defendant’s residence located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Mapo-si C.

On January 24, 2016, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “Around 00:18, the Defendant appeared and made a statement at the Masan Police Station G Police Station located in the same Gu F as a victim, and the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant, while putting this string of the eroding glass and finished today, she threatened the Defendant with her course of resistance.”

However, there was no fact that the E did not pose a threat to the Defendant's distribution of the glass angle, and there was no difference between the fact and the fact that the glass angle was collected.

In this respect, the defendant made a false accusation against E for the purpose of having the criminal punishment imposed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The legal statement of the witness H and I in part;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of E by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement made by the police against the defendant;

1. Application of investigation reports (112 Confirmations of Report No. 112) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 156 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On January 23, 2016, the assertion E carried the glass of one’s house entrance door and carried it in hand and threatened the Defendant with a view to a glass view away from the ground.

The fact that the defendant made a statement to the effect that he would not go against E at the time of questioning at the prosecution is because E would be subject to heavy punishment during the period of repeated crime because he asked to do so.

Therefore, the Defendant did not dismiss E.

2. The judgment is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court.