The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. As to fraud, the Defendant did not request the victim to conduct a public opinion poll or deception the victim at the time and place of the instant crime.

B. The purport of the Defendant’s complaint against an act of false accusation was to ask for the punishment of a violation of the Public Official Election Act, regardless of whether the victim’s act was a crime of publishing false information or of slandering a candidate. Thus, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of false accusation with the absence of intention to commit a crime of false accusation or the absence of intention in the process of circumstances.

2. In view of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation under the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2551, Apr. 15, 2016). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation as to all the facts or circumstances found by the evidence employed by the evidence in detail.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in a thorough comparison with the records, the lower court’s acknowledgement and determination of facts are justifiable and acceptable.