A. As to Defendant 1’s accusation among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not constitute a false accusation on the grounds that he did not have any intention to make a false accusation. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the attack among the facts charged in the instant case, in light of the A’s legal statement, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part by misunderstanding the facts, even though the Defendant could have, explicitly or implicitly, restricted the A’s freedom of decision-making or interfered with the freedom of decision-making. 2) The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant reported false facts to the police for the purpose of having G be subject to criminal punishment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① At the time of filing a complaint, the Defendant sent to G a 100,000 foot check at the same time, and was returned, but he had been posted on the multiple tables.

However, the court of the court below asserted that the plaintiff did not have a 300,000 won since he did not go to go to G, and that the court of the court of the court below set the plaintiff to go to the table.

It is not consistent with the statements, such as the statement that 300,000 won was unfolded from wall A.

In addition, even according to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant and G were fluencing her friend, while having 10 to 15 minutes of sexual intercourse, and G was flucing in the house (On the other hand, G denies the fact of sexual intercourse) and G did not seem to have any gap in bringing about 300,000 won from Defendant A’s wall.

② On the other hand, G is consistently constituted by the Defendant.