A. In the case of a false accusation against the Defendant and his defense counsel (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, since there are circumstances to suspect the credibility of the oath and testimony made by D as a witness, it is different from the facts and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the testimony, the facts that the Defendant accused D with the investigative agency for perjury are not false against objective truth, but proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about

It is not possible to see that the defendant did not have the purpose of having the criminal intent and D receive criminal punishment against the accusation of false facts.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of false accusation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court that sentenced two years to imprisonment is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the criminal defendant was not in a good health condition and is economically difficult.

B. Despite the fact that the Defendant filed a complaint against the relevant persons, including D, with the contents similar thereto several times, each of the instant crimes committed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is extremely unreasonable and unfair in light of the following: (a) the Defendant filed a false accusation against D with the intent to harm the Defendant; (b) the Defendant’s false accusation of D with the intent to harm the Defendant; (c) the nature of the crime is very unusual; (d) the Defendant’s crime of false accusation is extremely unreasonable; (e) the investigation agency’s unnecessary duty burden is increased; and (e) the Defendant’s distort criminal justice procedure is distorted; and (e) the Defendant’s punishment is strictly necessary; and (e) the Defendant did not reflect the wrong.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., the Defendant first filed a complaint against the relevant persons, including D.