The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) The term “report of false facts” in the crime of false accusation refers to the recognition and reporting that the reported facts are contrary to objective facts. As such, when a reporter is convicted and reported as true, the crime of false accusation is not established. However, the Defendant made a conviction that F’s assault was committed under the implied consent of the company, and filed a complaint against E, a representative of the company, and the F’s assault cannot be concluded as unrelated to the company, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a false accusation against the company. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged with false accusation. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge of false accusation.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) is applicable only to witness K and L’s statements suspected of credibility despite the testimony made by four witnesses on the part of the prosecutor’s office

(2) The court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged as to the violation of the rules of evidence, and erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence. 2) The above sentence imposed by the court below on the violation of the rules of evidence is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant cannot conclude that F’s assault against F was irrelevant to E. However, the above argument appears to be based on the legal doctrine that the requirement for the crime of false accusation, which is false in breach of objective truth, should be proven. Thus, the first argument is examined.

In other words, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., F was consistently and contingent, and E did not instruct the Defendant at the time.