The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the Reasons for Appeal 1) The lower court convicted the Defendant on the basis of the following: (a) the testimony and probative value of E without credibility; and (b) the Defendant’s conviction based on the written and stamp image appraisal.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of false accusation is justifiable.

① In around 2006, the individual publication price of the instant land was KRW 510,100 per 3.3 square meters, and the Defendant was also aware of the market price at the time of 3.3 square meters to KRW 60-800,000 per 3.3 square meters (an investigation record 321-322). If the Defendant asserts, E paid an amount equivalent to approximately 6 times the individual publication price, approximately 4-5 times the market price, and only received “approval for use”.

Around that time, considering that E is a multi-level situation to undergo a completion inspection, this transaction does not conform to the common sense.

In this regard, the defendant only stated that he received the money brought by E, but failed to accurately explain the circumstances leading up to the agreement.

② If E was for the purpose of obtaining the consent to use of the instant land, it seems sufficient to conclude an agreement on approximately 1 to 2 square meters for the affected area.

However, the Defendant stated to the effect that, according to the minimum division area regulation at the time, 10 square meters were the subject matter, and that the 10 square meters was expected to be eventually divided (the 324th page of the investigation record). The Defendant’s statement does not coincide with the purpose of the consent to use.

③ It is recognized that a written consent to land use is prepared between the Defendant and E, and that a certificate of seal impression, which is a “general” rather than “use for real estate sale,” is attached (an investigation record 45-46 pages). However, in order to divide a parcel of land at the time, a completion inspection was conducted first.