A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts: (1) Of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A was fully repaid KRW 30 million from E; (2) there was no false accusation; (3) Defendants did not make a false accusation with respect to the fraud portion of KRW 10 million from the 2013 Go-Ma1192, and there was no false accusation with the victim L with respect to the 2013 Go-MaMa1192, nor did the victim make a false statement with respect to the 2013 Go-Ma192, the victim did not have a mere civil settlement problem; (3) there existed no intention with the victim; and therefore, there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the case of Defendant A’s 2013 Go-Ma1132, the key issue is whether or not the Defendant has fully repaid the amount of KRW 30 million, which is the collateral obligation of the right to collateral security, and whether or not the Defendant has filed a false complaint for the purpose of having a criminal punishment imposed upon E despite the Defendant’s failure to fully repay the guaranteed obligation. The following two issues are successively examined: (a) the relevant legal principles are to be established at the time of reporting false facts to public offices or public officials for the purpose of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary punishment; and (b) the term “report of false facts” refers to the conclusive or incomplete recognition and reporting that the reported fact goes against objective facts; (c) even if a part of the reported fact is included in a part of the reported fact, the false part has an important part that affects the establishment of the crime.