The prosecutor, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, found the defendant guilty of false accusation among each of the facts charged in this case. However, the court below rejected the evidence submitted by the prosecutor without any reasonable ground and acquitted the defendant of false accusation among each of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to false accusation or by misapprehending the legal principles as to false accusation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the gist of the lower judgment and the gist of the judgment

The summary of each of the facts charged in this case is as follows: “The defendant was aware that on November 3, 1998, the non-indicted 1 had the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 1 had the defendant obtain the right of permanent rent gathering from the non-indicted 2 and the defendant obtain the right of permanent rent gathering from the non-indicted 2 and the right of permanent rent gathering from the non-indicted 3 to the non-indicted 10 for the purpose of using the right of permanent rent gathering from the non-indicted 2 to the non-indicted 3 for the purpose of using the right of permanent rent gathering from the non-indicted 10 to the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 3 to the non-indicted 10 for the purpose of using the right of permanent rent gathering from the non-indicted 2 to the non-indicted 10 for the purpose of using the right of permanent rent gathering from the non-indicted 3 to the non-indicted 10 for the purpose of using the right of permanent rent gathering from the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 198.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. In order for the reported act to constitute a false crime with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment, the reported fact itself should be that the cause of criminal punishment can be the cause of criminal punishment. If the fact itself does not constitute a criminal offense, even if the reported fact itself is false, the crime of false accusation is not established (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do3738, Nov. 8, 2002; 92Do1799, Oct. 13, 1992, etc.).

B. However, according to the criminal investigation records (Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, 2004, 3500, 200, 2004, 3500), the defendant's complaint against the non-indicted 1 was concluded, and since the defendant's complaint against the non-indicted 1 was made from the Dakdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, 1998 to November 3, 198, with respect to the forest and field of this case owned by himself, the defendant cultivated and managed the answer in this case for 10 years from 199 to 2008, as well as collected the transmission of the forest and field of this case to the non-indicted 1 and to pay 12 00 kilograms each year to the non-indicted 1 in return, the non-indicted 2 and 3 unilaterally suffered damages to the defendant's obligations under the contract of this case to the non-indicted 1, 2000,000 won.

If the defendant's accusation against the non-indicted 1 is the same as above, according to the contract of this case with the contents as seen above in the above accusation, the defendant acquired the claim against the non-indicted 1 under his own number, and the non-indicted 1 bears the obligation to enable the defendant to recover the transmission from the forest of this case. Thus, the non-indicted 1 is merely the debtor's simple status against the defendant, and it cannot be deemed that he keeps the transmission from the forest of this case for the defendant, or he is in the status to handle the defendant's business. Thus, even if the non-indicted 1 transferred the right to collect the transmission from the forest of this case to the non-indicted 2 and 3 after he transferred the right to collect the transmission from the defendant to the non-indicted 1, as seen in the above accusation, the above act of the non-indicted 1 by the non-indicted 1 does not constitute a criminal offense such as embezzlement or a crime of breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1216, September 25, 190).

C. Meanwhile, in the first head of the above complaint, Nonindicted Party 1 written the contract in the Chinese letter to the effect that the defendant was aware that he was a person who is a member of the Gu, and the purport of the above language is merely to state an abstract opinion or assertion of the author, and it cannot be deemed that the author publicly stated specific facts about the elements of crime, such as fraud or fabrication of private documents.

D. Thus, even if the defendant knew well that he did not have the right to collect any objection that he did not grow in the forest of this case, he had the right to collect the above objection, and Non-Indicted 1 reported false facts as if he did so twice to Non-Indicted 2 and 3, so long as the fact of the complaint itself does not constitute a crime of embezzlement, a crime of breach of trust, or a crime of criminal punishment, the defendant's act of false report cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of false accusation. Thus

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)