The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the following explanation: (a) the Defendant, who is an employee of C for the opening of a mobile phone, called “to prepare and sign an application form directly and to consent to the opening of a mobile phone,” and (b) the counselor stated that “it is difficult to assert the identity theft since he/she consented to the opening of a mobile phone,” and thus, it cannot be deemed a simple exaggeration of circumstances that C filed a charge of forging the application form by stealing the name of the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant made a statement in the Supplementary Statement to the effect that “The Defendant only sent identification cards after receiving the word “a loan from a mobile phone,” but does not have any participation in the opening of a mobile phone, and there is no person who can see the person who opened a mobile phone by preparing an application for subscription in the name of the Defendant.” Although C committed a crime by deceiving a mobile phone in connection with the mobile phone export organization, it was committed by

However, considering that the victim is not the defendant but a communications company, it is clearly different from the fact that the defendant filed a complaint by forging and using private documents C. Therefore, the defendant's accusation is established.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of false accusation.

2. The lower court, in light of the records, states detailed reasons when determining that the facts reported by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be false or that the core or important contents are not false, or that the circumstances are not somewhat exaggerated based on the facts. In light of the records, the above determination is just and acceptable.

In addition, C, even though he is aware that the mobile phone opened in the name of the defendant is not actually used by the defendant, but the name-free person will take out and sell it overseas, he conspired with the name-free person in collusion with the name-free person in order to open the mobile phone in the name of the defendant.

If there are these circumstances, they will be.