The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that ① C/E stated that the place in which the instant loan certificate was prepared was a teahouse, but the place in which the loan certificate was prepared is the same as “M,” ② the Defendant stated in the investigative agency that the Defendant prepared the loan certificate in a consistent manner, ③ the Defendant did not receive money directly from C, and rather paid C more amount than the investment amount, there was no doubt that the Defendant reported false facts to C.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the criminal intent is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional act, and is also sufficient for dolusent intent.

As such, the crime of false accusation is established by reporting the fact that the reporting person is not true, and it does not require conviction that the reported fact is false. Moreover, the crime of false accusation is not committed on the ground that the purpose of filing a complaint is not to punish the other party, and that the purpose of filing a complaint is not to spread the Si expenses, and that there is no intention to commit a crime of false accusation.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Do3271 delivered on December 12, 1995, 2005Do4642 delivered on May 25, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, it is easy to consistently state that the health account of the instant case and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, as follows: ① C/E drafted the instant loan certificate from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court to the effect that “the Defendant would return the investment account from the teahouse to C/E” and the Defendant would return the investment account from May 14, 2012, and at the same time make a consistent statement.