A. In relation to the fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, there is no fact that the defendant sold F building 301 to C, and thus, the contents of the complaint against C are not false, and thus, the crime of false accusation is not established.

With regard to the refusal to leave and the damage of property, this constitutes an act to recover the defendant's property and constitutes a justifiable act, and in relation to the fact of insult, it is merely an act of insult against the victim C in the process of forced expulsion, and it does not constitute an insult against the victim C, and it constitutes a justifiable act even if it is an insult.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in its holding, and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 4 in its holding, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, sold F building 301 to C in lieu of the purchase price on the condition that C takes over various debts and did not receive the refund of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis.

It is reasonable to see that the act of refusing to withdraw and destroying property constitutes a justifiable act, and the defendant has insultingly committed an insulting act by harming C.

It is reasonable to view it.

I explained that the defendant's assertion was rejected.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (it constitutes a justifiable act even in the case of insult when the defendant was in the first instance court, but in light of the background, method and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem it as a justifiable act). The judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendant or by misapprehending the legal principles.

(b).