1. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) The crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against the objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition. Meanwhile, since the crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against the objective truth, there should be positive proof as to the requirement that the reported fact goes against the objective fact. The mere passive proof that the authenticity of the reported fact cannot be recognized is a false fact contrary to the objective truth, and the establishment of the crime of false accusation cannot be acknowledged by concluding the reported fact as a false fact contrary to the objective truth.

(2) On January 27, 2004, the gist of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) although the Defendant only transferred 20 million won to E under the name of the delivery to G, it did not transfer 20 million won to E with the expenses for recovery of claims, the Defendant filed a false complaint with the purport that “E would recover 100 million won from F if he did not have any intention or ability to recover the claims, and then, he would receive 20 million won from the Defendant if he would receive 20 million won from F if he did not have any intention or ability to recover the claims.” (b) On September 9, 2004, the Defendant filed a false complaint with the purport that “E would be punished and changed if he received 20 million won from the Defendant on September 9, 2004.”

On the basis of each statement in E, G's prosecutor's office and court, the lower court, on September 9, 2004, remitted KRW 20 million to the I head of Tong on September 9, 2004.