A. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant D and police officers guilty of each of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that all of the entries in the accusation against Defendant D and police officers E were false and that the Defendant had no intention to commit a crime, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below is just in finding the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the facts charged in the judgment below, since the Defendant prepared and submitted a written complaint about D and E with false contents as stated in the

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The offense of false determination on the prosecutor’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is a serious criminal that obstructs the appropriate exercise of the state’s penal authority, and causes the persons under suspicion to be subject to unfair criminal punishment, and the Defendant denies the instant crime and does not repent their mistakes up to the trial. The Defendant, including the instant crime, filed a complaint with D at least 11 times, and continuously submitted reference materials and statements to express his/her false statement, and, in particular, it seems that the crime is considerably poor, and that the Defendant was likely to have suffered from D due to this, suffered significant mental damage. Nevertheless, the Defendant sought a letter or damaged the Defendant’s novel.