The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as follows, has reported the actual crime or filed a complaint due to a mistake or error, so there is no false report to the investigation agency for the purpose of having another person receive criminal punishment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

On May 20, 2015, the Defendant did not engage in any act interfering with business at a beauty art room operated by around 17:00 a defendant, a defendant, around May 20, 2015.

Therefore, C's report of interference with the business of the Defendant was without prejudice to the Defendant, and the Defendant's accusation of C as stated in this part of the facts charged is a report on the actual crime.

Section 1 of 2016 upperest 5780 : the Defendant assaulted business F on October 2013, and did not inflict any injury by plucking or plucking the left hand of E, and only assaulted E and F.

Therefore, it is true that E/F filed a complaint for an injury or assault against a defendant, and that it is true that the defendant filed a complaint for an injury or assault against a defendant as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Article 5780 Item 2 of the High Order 2016: (a) the Defendant considered that G (tentative name) filed a complaint against the Defendant with retaliation (violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and filed a complaint against G as a crime of false accusation; (b) G knew that it was not a complaint against the Defendant by intimidation; and (c) that G was aware that it was not a complaint against the Defendant by intimidation, and that it was revoked by the investigative agency.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed each of the crimes of interference with business with C, assault against F, bodily injury to E, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against G as stated in the facts charged of this case.