The nature of the crime of false accusation and reporting in belief that the facts against objective facts are true (negative)

In the crime of false accusation, the reporting person is required to report even if it is contrary to objective facts, but if the reporting person is confirmed to be true and reported, the crime of false accusation is not established.

Article 156 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor (Defendants)

Attorney Kim Jong-ro

Daegu District Court Decision 79No1275 delivered on May 7, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to an accusation:

(A) The facts charged as to the defendant's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's aggregate of 134-13,092's 1731-77 river, 9,831-7, 139-175 river, 473 square meters, 1380-444 river, 1380-3 square meters, or 1228-22 river, 9,436 square meters, 1228-3, 1053-13, 134,092 square meters in the same city. The judgment of the court below is justified and it is so decided that only 3 lots of land in the above Sungsung-gun shall be subject to the above aggregate extraction, and the defendant's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted.

(B) The judgment of the court below that Defendant 1 reported to the police office that he was threatened by Nonindicted 1 is due to the defendant's conviction, and that the records are examined, it is not acceptable to accept the above measures of the court below and there is no violation of documentary evidence, such as theory of lawsuit. In the case of an accusation, the reporter should be aware that the reported fact is false, and therefore, even if it is contrary to objective facts, if the reported person is confirmed to be true and reported as true, the judgment of the court below out of this purport is just and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the accusation.

2. On the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act:

According to the records, it can be revealed that the river site suspension work owned by Defendant 1 was awarded to the Non-Indicted 1 and that it is not in a quid pro quo relationship to support the acquisition of the photographing Museum's photographing right. Therefore, the court below's decision supporting the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant 1 is justifiable, and the theory that it is against the rules of evidence is not adopted.

The appeal shall be dismissed for the reasons above and without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)