1. The crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against the objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition, and thus, the requirement that the reported fact goes against the objective fact requires positive proof. The mere passive proof that the authenticity of the reported fact cannot be recognized is a false fact contrary to the objective truth, and the establishment of the crime of false accusation cannot be recognized.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do599, Feb. 24, 1998; 2003Do5114, Jan. 27, 2004; 2003Do5114, Feb. 27, 2004). Furthermore, even if the fact of accusation is false contrary to objective facts, if the fact of accusation is false, there is no intention to raise

If the contents of the complaint are not false or false, but the circumstances are not somewhat exaggerated on the basis of facts, the crime of false accusation shall not be established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1949 delivered on September 8, 1998, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5939 delivered on January 24, 2003, etc.). Meanwhile, in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the authenticity of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). The judgment of innocence in a criminal trial means that there is no proof that a judge would have a conviction to the extent that he/she would have a reasonable doubt out of a reasonable doubt with respect to the facts charged, and it does not mean that the absence of the facts charged was proven (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da25368, Sept. 8, 1998).