The gist of the defendant's grounds of appeal is that the original judgment (including the first instance judgment maintained at the original judgment) has a defect in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of false accusation, and according to the records, the facts cited in the original judgment are justified in light of the legitimate evidence relation cited in the judgment, and the degree of recognition is reasonable, and it is sufficient for others to report the fact that there is no defect in the rules of evidence, such as lower judgment, and that the establishment of the crime of false accusation is not true by reporting the fact that it is not true with the intention of having others receive criminal or disciplinary action, and that it is not necessary for them to have a false conviction (see Supreme Court Decisions 4287Ma65, Mar. 22, 1955; 4293Ma749, Oct. 26, 1961; 63Do144, Jul. 25, 1963).

When the record is prepared, the original judgment to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no reason to argue that there is no ground to believe that there is a misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of false accusation, and other simple mistake of facts cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case, which has been sentenced to a suspended sentence, is obvious by the provisions of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the appeal in this case is eventually dismissed as it is not dismissed as it is without merit. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)