Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 12:00 on May 5, 2016, the injured Defendant received a claim from the victim E (51 tax) to the effect that the Defendant had done a defective construction work from the Government-Si, Ma-si, Ma-si, Ma-si, Ma-do, and caused injury to the victim, such as light finites, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment by pushing the part of the victim twice.

2. On May 11, 2016, the Defendant was investigated by the police to the effect that the Defendant suffered assault from the Defendant, as above, and that the Defendant was subject to assault from the Defendant, using a computer in the Defendant’s residence located in the Speaker-si F around 11, 2016, for E using the Defendant’s computer to “the Defendant was subject to assaults requiring two weeks’ treatment from the Defendant Nonparty E, thereby making an investigation into the Defendant’s complaint and severe punishment.

“A false statement of complaint,” but fact E did not have an assault against the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant submitted a written complaint prepared as above to the police officer who could not know his name in the civil petition office of the government police station located in 1265 to the Gu-ho-si of the Government-si.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

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

1. A complaint and withdrawal of a complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Relevant Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s defense counsel constituted a justifiable act that does not violate social rules, as a passive resistance against the victim’s continuous defamation.

However, this shall not apply.