If the evidence admitted by the first instance court as cited by the lower court is examined by comparing it with the records, the facts constituting the offense of this case can be fully recognized.

In addition, in the crime of false accusation, the criminal intent is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional act, and it is sufficient to do so. Therefore, the crime of false accusation is established by reporting the fact that the reporting person is not true, and it does not require conviction that the reported fact is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do2366, Feb. 9, 198; 91Do2127, Dec. 13, 1991; 91Do2127, Dec. 13, 199), and if it is acknowledged that only the victim Kim Uniform was living in the house of the victim's door store after the new construction of the building of this case, it shall be reasonable to deem that only the above Kim Uniform was not living in the house of the above door store, and that the defendant who filed the above Kim Man-sik and door house with the perjury and door house as a perjury, at least did so.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be said to have erred by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the false accusation, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)