A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 17, 2017, the Defendant prepared a written complaint stating that “The circumstances of the Defendant Nonparty C, who had been placed in the public service center of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was located in Hong Sung-gun, shall be punished because they stolen the fingerprints and name of the complainant (Defendant) and forged the revocation of the complaint against D,” and submitted it to the employee in charge of the public service center.

However, on November 2, 2015, the Defendant directly visited the Hongsung Police Station, who was in charge of the police, and signed and stamped the complaint and submitted it to the above C Inspector, who was the police officer in charge.

Accordingly, the defendant reported false facts to public offices or public officials for the purpose of having the above C receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Complaints of the accused;

1. Copy of the case records and copies of relevant records;

1. A written appraisal (No. 9 on a list of evidence);

1. A criminal investigation report (a copy of a written application for a suspect's civil petition), and the application of civil petition statutes;

1. Relevant Article 156 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing in Articles 157, 153, and 55(1)3(a) of the Criminal Act for the necessary mitigation of punishment, stated that he/she intentionally committed the instant crime, resulting in failure to memory the fact that he/she submitted a letter of withdrawal of the complaint in the 2015 accusation case against D (hereinafter “the previous accusation case”), which is a police officer in charge, committed the crime of this case.

However, following circumstances that can be seen by the above evidence, namely, ① there is any problem in the defendant's memory, reading force, and recognition ability.

There are no grounds to view, and ② The defendant suffers from a big interest in the transfer case even if he made his statement, so the previous accusation case is dealt with.