A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or mistake of facts, although the defendant filed a complaint against the facts consistent with the truth, and filed a false complaint as stated in the facts charged in this case, thereby finding the defendant guilty.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that “a judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” was stated in the judgment.

In full view of the circumstances presented by the court below and the trial court, the defendant submitted the written appraisal results requested by the defendant, but the appraisal results are insufficient to dismiss the written appraisal results by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office. The judgment of the court below is just.

Therefore, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s two times of the determination of the illegality of sentencing by a false accusation of a false fact, thereby undermining the State’s exercise of the criminal justice or disciplinary power and causing waste of investigation power; (b) the Defendant was at risk of being subject to punishment twice or more due to the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant still was suffering from a large mental suffering; and (d) the Defendant is able to raise an additional suspicion by doubting C with the verified content; and (c) the Defendant is not at all against the instant crime.

However, the crime of this case against the victim.