A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles do not constitute false facts, and the Defendants were provided with school violence counseling on the basis of H’s speech only, and H was provided with the advice of the Y, so the Defendants did not recognize that H’s statement was false, and the Defendants did not recognize that H’s statement was false, and the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the sole ground of H’s statement that there was no credibility.

2) Each sentence (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor, Defendant B: 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor, and 2 years of suspended sentence) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants are too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the lower court as to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine 1) The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court.

As to this, the court below's comprehensive review of the following circumstances, namely, ① there was sufficient motive for the Defendants to report the false fact of damage to the F himself, ② the interval between time after H was consulted with a school and reporting the damage to the Seaba Center, ② the Defendants prepared a written statement to be submitted simultaneously with the report to the Seaba Center, and the H's written statement was prepared to be closely prepared to H, and not only changed the Lba but also prepared to be prepared by H several times.

H directly stated that H had been entered

The contents and expressions that are difficult to see, and ③ When H makes a statement at the Seaba Center, the Defendants accompanied the Ma that has not yet been given birth as his or her father, and H is also dismissed by Defendant A.