logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.08.28 2014노4658
무고
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles determined that D was not lawfully selected and appointed by C Officetel management committee, and the defendant submitted a petition to the effect that D had no means to collect evidential data, and that D's use of the officetel management fee was legitimate and different from the investigation agency. Thus, even if D did not have legitimate authority, the defendant submitted a petition to the effect that D's use of the officetel management fee was not legitimate. Thus, the defendant did not report false facts, and even if D was appointed as the manager of the above officetel through legitimate procedures, the defendant did not recognize that D's report was false, and thus, the defendant did not have any intention to make a false accusation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the criminal intent does not necessarily require that it is a conclusive intention, and is sufficient for the willful negligence.

As such, the crime of false accusation is established by reporting the fact that the reporting person is not true and that the reported fact is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4642, May 25, 2006). In addition, the crime of false accusation is not committed on the ground that the purpose of filing a complaint is not to punish the other party, and that the purpose of filing a complaint is not to raise the cost, and it does not constitute a crime of false accusation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do3271 delivered on December 12, 1995). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant, who was the chairperson of the Ctel management committee from April 200 to August 201, is a person who was the chairperson of the Ctel management committee (trustee) of an aggregate building.

arrow