The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant filed a false complaint as a loan even though he paid money as investment money. Even if the defendant did not have the principal return agreement at the time of remitting money to F and there was an ex post facto damage compensation agreement, this does not affect the establishment of the crime of false accusation, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended execution for eight months of imprisonment, one year of community service, 120 hours of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The lower court, on the assertion of mistake of facts, determined that the circumstances and facts recognized by the evidence of this case were not “report of false facts” as referred to in the crime of false accusation after comprehensively explaining the relevant legal principles after considering the circumstances and facts recognized by the evidence of this case.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and the prosecutor's above assertion is groundless.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health class, the lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. In addition, even if considering all factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfilled and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.