The Defendant, as the victim did not pay monthly rent for two months and the deposit that the victim paid, published an advertisement to the effect that the lessee of the above D Luxembourg was found in the examination of the rice Luxembourg market. The Defendant was willing to mislead the victim to prevent the removal of the cafeterias purchased and used by the victim while emitting the victim at the restaurant.

On October 26, 2013, the Defendant prepared a letter of complaint to the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western Police Station’s unification to the effect that “two Dogs, Myeongs, 50 Myeongs, 38 Myeongs, 30 Myeongs, 20 Myeongs, 400 Myeongs, and mix 1, which were in a restaurant, stolen, and submitted to the employee in charge of the management of the office with no knowledge of his name.”

However, the victim did not destroy the above goods with the permission of the defendant while cleaning the above restaurant.

In this respect, the defendant committed an act for the purpose of having the victim receive criminal punishment.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s lawsuit did not permit the Defendant to abandon the article as indicated in the judgment against E, and even though the Defendant demanded the return of the lost article to E, only a part of the Defendant was returned, and the Defendant did not cause any return of the remaining articles, and there was no intention to mislead the Defendant.

B. Since the crime of false accusation is established when another person reports a false fact against the objective truth with the intention of having the person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition, the requirement that the reported fact goes against the objective fact must be proven actively, and the truth of the reported fact shall be recognized.