The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not consent to the removal or destruction of shares of the deceased D’s heir, E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “the right holder of the instant house”), a co-owner of the instant house (hereinafter “instant house”), as indicated in the facts charged, and K voluntarily submitted a report on the removal of the building under the name of the Defendant and a written confirmation to the Seongbuk-gu Office by forging the “report on the destruction of the building” and “written confirmation.”

Therefore, the defendant did not file a false accusation against K, but did not have any intention to commit a false accusation.

2. Determination:

A. The fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is significant evidence. Thus, the fact that is contrary to the fact cannot be recognized unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11349, Dec. 24, 2009). B.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the health team and the first instance court, it is determined that the defendant's accusation against K was false, and that the defendant had an intention to commit an offense against the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

(1) In the previous criminal case against the Defendant, the Defendant sold the said house without the consent of the remaining right holders of the instant house on July 2012, and applied for removal of the said house to Seongbuk-gu Office as a whole. On May 2013, the Defendant damaged the said house, which is a property owned by the remaining right holders of the instant house, by completing removal of the said house.

(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Mo235, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No3001, Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1997). The grounds asserted by the Defendant were mostly asserted in the previous criminal cases and the judgment was previously rendered.