A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles C actually puts KRW 100 million as a commission in mediating a sales contract as stated in the facts charged of this case, the complaint of this case where C acquired KRW 200 million as a whole is somewhat exaggerated, the entire truth is consistent with the truth, and there was no awareness that the Defendant was false at the time of the complaint.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Error 1) Since the criminal intent in a crime of false accusation is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional act, it is not sufficient to establish a crime of false accusation 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 Decision 2005Do4642, May 25, 2006). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

A) Around October 15, 2004, E entered into a contract to sell F and Geumsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, etc. for KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) At the time of the preparation of a sales contract, C participates in the intermediary of E (seller), the Defendant, H, and G, the buyer, respectively. (b) C and F, and G agree in the original judgment that “F delayed the payment of balance, upon the request of E, to pay KRW 1.15 billion in addition to the initial amount of KRW 100 million.” The F demanded that the purchase price be stated as KRW 1.255 billion in the purchase price and ultimately, the sales contract, in which amount of KRW 1.25 billion in the purchase price was stated as KRW 1.250 million, was re-established.”

C. In addition, F is consistent with the investigation agency and the lower court’s decision that “I directly paid E the purchase price of KRW 1.05 billion.”