All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (with regard to attempted fraud), at the time of the Defendant’s filing of the instant lawsuit, the amount received from the victim was not less than KRW 100 million. The Defendant thought that not only the amount invested principal but also the amount was not returned to KRW 150 million, and thus, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit against the victim. As such, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the instant lawsuit. The lower court, which recognized that the Defendant had the intention to commit the litigation fraud on the premise that the Defendant received KRW 2490,000,000,000 from the victim, including the investment principal and the profits, was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts. 2) The lower

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (with respect to a mistake of facts), the Defendant filed a complaint with the victim’s refusal to return on or around May 31, 2016 at the time of filing the instant complaint, on or around December 2008, under the charge of occupational embezzlement. Since the statute of limitations for reporting was not imposed on or around December 2008 at the time of filing the complaint, the reported fact itself does not constitute a criminal offense. Nevertheless, the lower court’s decision that the Defendant did not constitute a crime of false accusation on or around October 11, 2007 on the ground that the victim’s reported fact was an act of withdrawal from office after the statute of limitations has expired under the former Criminal Procedure Act is deemed to be an act of withdrawal from office on or around October 11, 2007, on the ground that the victim’s complaint was filed after the statute of limitations has expired is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant made the same assertion in the lower court as in the trial of the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, recognized that the Defendant was fully returned from the victim of the entire amount of investment from the victim, and stated false details in the instant complaint.