A. The Defendant’s accusation against C, E, and F is not false but accords with objective truth.

Even if the above contents of the complaint are included differently from the facts, it is due to the defendant's erroneous perception of facts due to the omission or misunderstanding, and there was no criminal intention against the defendant at the time of the complaint.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, but the lower court rejected the allegation in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined:

“The police officer C sent the case to the District Public Prosecutor’s Office on September 2, 2013 on the charge of violating the State Property Act against the Defendant on the charge of violation of the State Property Act by prosecution, and the public prosecutor E of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office E of the Speaker’s District Public Prosecutor’s Office had procedural problems regarding the Defendant’s conducting a land survey without the presence of the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant directed the Defendant to conduct a land survey again at the presence of the Defendant. On September 12, 2013, the police officer C of the Gyeonggi High Police Station C pointed out the land of the instant state-owned land in the presence of the Defendant F, etc. at the Yangju-si, and was at the scene of the Defendant at the time of the survey,

The police officer C, who made a separate survey on October 1, 2013, and submitted a plan to the investigative agency on October 8, 2013, the result of the survey on the restoration of the police station’s boundary, and the defendant still was suspected of violating the State Property Act. < Amended by Act No. 11904, Oct. 23, 2013>