Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In light of the following circumstances, etc., the Defendant did not conclude a contract for a construction project with B and C, a construction business operator. From the standpoint of the Defendant and G, the Defendant did not conclude a contract for a construction project with B and C, which is a construction business operator. From the standpoint of the Defendant and G, the need for a boundary project was only necessary in relation to AO, and there was no need or urgency for an order, and the amount of the instant contract for a construction project is difficult to cope with the instant order. The scale, materials, etc. of one order that B and others performed does not go into G and does not function to block AO access. The construction business operator’s statement on the location and process of the instant order construction and its alteration, purpose of construction, etc. does not have credibility. In light of the overall progress, etc. of a contract for a construction project, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant suspended one order while demanding B, etc. that the Defendant forced to perform one order construction project.) The Defendant did not prepare a written consent for the use of the instant land, and the statement made by construction business operators and H does not exist in light of credibility.

3) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the fact that B and C, a construction business operator, which was a horse bidder in the course of performing one order construction work, were forced to perform one order construction work or threatened the Defendant with intimidation or threat to construction cost. 4) Accordingly, the content of the complaint concerning fabrication, etc. of private documents prepared by the Defendant around July 23, 2013 (hereinafter “the complaint of this case”) does not constitute any false fact contrary to objective truth.

In addition, there was no doubt about the defendant's intention to commit the crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charge of false accusation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2...