The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) that the defendant transferred to F on July 5, 2007 all the authority pertaining to the G development project to F on the basis of “F” is written by F in order to inform F of the fact that F actually takes the lead of the above project and to prevent the creditors of I and O Co., Ltd. who actually take the lead of the defendant from demanding the F to pay back obligations.

The amount of KRW 50 million in the above agreement includes the money borrowed from F, and part of KRW 3 billion that would have been received from the money borrowed from F, or from F, which would have been able to borrow in the future, and the Defendant did not receive any payment from F.

In addition, the right to one G development project is not a document dealing with the above project because the defendant could not transfer his right to the above project to F in corporation I.

Therefore, the document presented by F to H and J is not the above agreement but the document submitted by F to H and J is used by forging the document of “F” in its title.

Along with the existence of a separate “defluence of rights,” the Defendant confirmed several times that there was a “refluence of rights from H and J”, and even from Kro, there was a document that such a document was forged and exercised by F. “F’s rejection of the right that it did not have any record of its preparation.”

Since reliance and accusation have been filed, there is no doubt that there is a crime of false accusation.

subsection (b) of this section.

Ultimately, it is clear that F has forged and exercised ‘the letter of rejection of the right' in addition to the above agreement, and even if not, the defendant believed F to have forged and used ‘the letter of rejection of the right'. Therefore, even though F did not constitute a crime of false accusation against the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicted the defendant.

2...