The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not transfer all the rights to the instant land to E, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Defendant 2016 Highest 7482 is memoryed as two copies of the Promissory Notes at the time of the instant complaint, and as such, there was a charge of forgery of securities regarding Promissory Notes with face value of KRW 600 million. Promissory Notes with face value of KRW 1.25 million with face value of KRW 1.255 million with face value were written differently from that of the Defendant, and thus, Defendant did not have intention to make an accusation.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the defense counsel's assertion and its judgment under the title of "decision on the defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below, which is the same as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below, 2015 High Order 8191 case, and the defendant's defense counsel stated in the judgment of the court below. In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding

subsection (b) of this section.

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

B. As to this part of the instant case, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit a crime without accusation at the time of the instant accusation.

As a result, the criminal intent in the crime of false accusation is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional and dolusent intention. Therefore, the crime of false accusation is established by reporting the fact that the reporting person is not true, and it does not require conviction that the reported fact is false (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4642 Decided May 25, 2006).