A. Since the fact that the defendant in mistake of facts concealed the loan claim of KRW 10 million against D against E despite the repayment of the loan claim of KRW 10 million against D and obtained a double payment of KRW 10 million from the defendant, it is not false, it is not established for the crime of false accusation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts also asserted the same purport, and the court below ruled that the defendant had already been aware of the fact of repayment E before paying KRW 10 million to D, and that the above KRW 10 million was paid as repayment for the defendant's separate obligation to D, so the complaint of this case with the purport that D received double repayment from the defendant. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of facts alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the instant case, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial.